HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-11-2619823
MINUTES OF THE 855° PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 855" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine John Walsh
Members absent: John Pastor
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.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only 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 writing, to the City Council.
Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7)
days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff
have reviewed each of these petitions upon their 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 of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 200240-0143 SCHOOLCRAFT COMMONS
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-10-
01-13, submitted by Schoolcraft Commons, LLC, requesting to
rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest %of
Section 7 from PL and R -5C to C-2, OS, PO and PO -II.
19824
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, due to the fact that I perform landscaping services
for Mr. Walkon, I will not be participating in this petition.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I am an officer at Schoolcmft College. Schoolcraft
College is the owner of this property in question. As a result, I think
it would be a conflict of interest if I participate. So I will be stepping
aside as well.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Let the record reflect that Mr. Alanskas and Mr. Walsh
both removed themselves from this petition. Mr. Taormina, would
you please go forward?
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated October 29, 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. The legal descriptions as presented are acceptable, however,
there is a small mathematical error in the east/west direction for the
descriptions of the overall parcel and the 20.70 ace PO 11 parcel.
We recommend that the surveyor review the descriptions as
presented and change them if so warranted. There is no additional
right-of-way required for this site. The drive approach to Haggerty
Road and the alteration of the intersection of Fox Drive requires
Wayne County approval, and the project is subject to the Wayne
County Storm Water Management Ordinance. Fox Drive is
currently a private mad. It is our understanding that the idea of
making it a public road was never pursued because the City
standard for a public mad is wider than the pavement that exists
onafte. If Fox Drive were to remain a private mad, the City would
look fora joint use agreement between the owners as a condition of
approval. The following general comments are provided at this
time for the petitioner's information concerning utility information.
Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 10" sanitary sewer located in
the vicinity of the south line of the development and the east line of
the Residence Inn. If this sewer does not have sufficient capacity
or depth to serve the development, it will be necessary to bore
under 1-275 at a point approximately 2,640 feet North of the
centerine of Six Mile Road. Water Main: The water main for the
project must be looped through an existing casing under P275 to
the east side of the expressway. The casing is located
approximately 2,050 feet North of the centedine of Six Mile Road.
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested."
19825
Mr. Walkon: I think it's been said what the project is about. But I'd like to
introduce who the main people are in the project and tell you some
of our outlook for the project. Doug Etkin is a real estate developer,
and he is my partner in this project. Doug is the largest private
developer in the State of Michigan. He's developed five or six
million feet of office space in Michigan and probably another two or
three million feet of retail. He has recently developed Cenlerpoinl,
which was the former General Motors Track Division. Its one of
the finest developments of that kind in the nation. Some at the
corporate headquarters he's developed are well known such as
Volkswagen, Compuware, Merrill Lynch, Great Lakes Gas. I could
go on. I think because at the last 15 years that you're probably
better acquainted with my work, and the last couple projects were
the AMC development, including the restaurants, and Millennium
Park, which was a combination of retail and industrial. I would like
to tell you who the speakers are tonight. The main speaker is going
to be Bob Bednas, who has a long history with design,
development and construction. He would be the person to ask of
any construction questions that may be presented tonight. Some of
the other people tonight are Curtis Burstein, who is the Vice
President. Rob Wineman, who will answer any at your questions
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Marvin Walkon,
Walkon Associates, 30445 Northwestern Highway, Suite 320,
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Would you like to tell us about your intentions for this
project?
Mr. Walkon:
Before we begin, I'd like to introduce the Chief Financial Officer
from Schoolcratt College, Jill O'Sullivan.
Jill F. O'Sullivan,
Vice President - Finance and Business Services, SchoolcraR
College, 18600 Haggerty, Livonia, Michigan 48152-2696. Over the
Iasi year, we've been working with the Walkon/Etkin group, as we
refer to them. I want you to know that our Board of Trustees has
put a lot of thought into this proposal, and that they approved the
proposal that's before you tonight, at lead the site plan.
SchoolcraR College tries to be creative in financing their operations.
We would much rather lease our land as opposed to asking the
taxpayers for a millage increase. We think this is a good deal for
both the college and the taxpayers in the City of Livonia. We are
endorsing the proposal for the rezoning bat's before you tonight.
Thankyou.
Mr. Walkon: I think it's been said what the project is about. But I'd like to
introduce who the main people are in the project and tell you some
of our outlook for the project. Doug Etkin is a real estate developer,
and he is my partner in this project. Doug is the largest private
developer in the State of Michigan. He's developed five or six
million feet of office space in Michigan and probably another two or
three million feet of retail. He has recently developed Cenlerpoinl,
which was the former General Motors Track Division. Its one of
the finest developments of that kind in the nation. Some at the
corporate headquarters he's developed are well known such as
Volkswagen, Compuware, Merrill Lynch, Great Lakes Gas. I could
go on. I think because at the last 15 years that you're probably
better acquainted with my work, and the last couple projects were
the AMC development, including the restaurants, and Millennium
Park, which was a combination of retail and industrial. I would like
to tell you who the speakers are tonight. The main speaker is going
to be Bob Bednas, who has a long history with design,
development and construction. He would be the person to ask of
any construction questions that may be presented tonight. Some of
the other people tonight are Curtis Burstein, who is the Vice
President. Rob Wineman, who will answer any at your questions
19826
regarding the restaurants. As we had said, there are three
restaurants. Although they don't have names, they have concepts
at this point. We have Mike Pudists, an architect and Senior Vice
President at Yamasaki, who is also present. We have Joe Marson,
who is the principal associate at Parsons Transportation Group.
Now before I begin, what we believe is one of the main issues that
our presentation has to develop tonight is traffic. We've tried to be
proactive, and we have retained a traffic consultant. Parson's is
known throughout the Midwest. What we're going to try to do is be
proactive and creative. I'd like at this time to introduce Bob
Bednas. Bob, could you come up here please?
Robert Bednas, Etkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200, Southfield,
Michigan 48034. Thank you, Marvin. Etkin Equities is very pleased
to be here tonight and partnered with Mr. Walkon on this exciting
development for Schoolcraft College. We're committed because it
gives us an opportunity to do some of the things that we feel we do
very well. Marvin briefly touched upon some of our other office and
business park developments that have been award winning from a
variety of national trade associations and other recognized groups.
This particular project at Schoolcraft Commons is not unlike some
of those projects. This particular project here is 50 acres. Our
project at Temple and Office Park in Troy was 58 acres. That
project is now finished. Its five buildings. Its got 800,000 square
feel. And a headquarters facility for Flagstar Bank that comprises
350,000 feel. Mr. Walkon also mentioned Compuware. They are
in a very nice headquarters campus in Farmington Hills, which is 30
acres, four buildings, 400,000 square feet. He also touched on
Cenlerpolnl Business campus in Pontiac, which we are particularly
proud of, which was a brownfield redevelopment. That has been a
very excifing project for us and the rebirth of that part of the City of
Pontiac. This particular project for Schoolcraft College, which we
now call College Park, as I mentioned, is 50 acres. We're
projecting at build-0ut it will have nine buldings, three restaurants,
a retail center, and small to larger office buildings, totaling about
450,000 feel on 50 acres. This density is considerably less than all
those other projects that I mentioned. We think its going to be a
very well executed, very well done project for everyone involved.
I've brought some boards that I like to talk to. Let me do a little
history as to how we got to be where we are. Miss O'Sullivan
mentioned that Schoolcraft College had solicited development
proposals from a number of local and national developers for this
property. What they got back was a variety of suggestions ranging
from big box retail to medium -to -high density apartments and other
mixed uses. The school was very proactive as to what they wanted
and what they didn't want. And we feel fortunate that we were
ultimately selected and have a project here that will provide the
highest and best use of the property and, more importantly, provide
19827
the best long-term value to the college, the City of Livonia and tie
community in general. Let me bang out this board here. This plan
is a slightly different version than the plan that was submitted with
the rezoning proposal in that in the process of developing a master
plan, it often goes though very many iterations with critical reviews
by our architects, engineers, real estate and marketing consultants.
The plan that was submitted essentially is similar to this plan.
Maybe I should put north up and make that a little easier to read.
The only variance between this plan and the plan that you have
before you is the introduction of a curved linear roadway running
through the project as a spine. As a result, some of the other
roadways became curved linear. We adjusted the site for the larger
office buildings ever so slightly to take better advantage of the
natural topography of the site. This was all done primarily in the
interests of improving the end product of the property. What it does
is visually improve the site lines as you drive through the project
because you dont have long straight lines, which I think are what's
represented on the plans in front of you; and it gives you an
opportunity to do some things with landscaping that otherwise
weren't possible. This change in the plan in no way affected the
rezoning lines that were requested because those have been
respected per the original plan. I'll come back to this a little bit
later. As I mentioned, going through the various iterations in the
development of the plan, the plan does respond to the marketplace.
As you are aware, we do have three restaurant uses and a retail
use along Haggerty Road. This was just a natural evolution of the
plan responding to the needs of the marketplace. Here we have
the three restaurants and the one retail center along Haggerty
Road. The rest of the plan consists of a one or two story office
building, three or four story office buildings, and, as shown here,
four to six story office buildings, although the zoning request is to
go to potentially seven or eight stories if necessary. The plan
evolved around a definitive natural boundary that runs through the
site. There's an existing open storm drain that runs from Haggerty
Road at the northwest and virtually bisects the property running
from northwest to southeast and exiting approximately at this
location on the property. From the outset in developing the master
plan, it was our intention to preserve and really enhance this
drainage course with additional landscaping, paths and walkways
for the benefit of the various tenants and dients that will be using
that project. This boundary then became kind of a natural
boundary between the various office locations here, this small one
at the north end, and these other two properties at the east end
near the freeway. One of the more interesting features of this plan
is the fact that ... Mark touched upon our traffic concems ... this
plan adds only one new curb cut to the public roadway system at
this location on Haggerty Road. The other access egress points
are preexisting with Fox Drive running north and south and
IErrzt
intersecting Six Mile Road at this location. The other main
driveway is an existing driveway to Schoolcraff College's south
parking lot. We're also tying into that driveway at that location.
What this does is virtually forces all the circulating traffic in the
project to utilize the interior roadway system as collector distributor
roads and keeps them off the other major roadways as far as
circulation is concemed. We thought that this was a very friendly
and favorable response to the community's concems about traffic in
that we're only adding one additional driveway, which as we all
know, lends to slow down traffic because of people making turns in
and out. To validate this even further, Mr. Walkon introduced Joe
Marson from Parsons Transportation Group. That firm is presently
undergoing and completing a traffic study that will validate not only
our internal roadway system but the effects of this development on
the surrounding roadways and the intersections. Let me just briefly
pull out one other board. I have reduced copies of this available for
you that we will distribute at the end of the presentation. This is a
bird's eye rendering of the project from the northwest looking
toward the southeast with the existing Schoolcmff parking lot in this
location, the single story restaurants along Haggerty here, along
with the retail center. As you can see, the project grows
progressively from the west to the east with the two-story building
here, the three to far story buildings here and the six story plus or
minus buildings along the freeway. This was a very useful tool just
to see how the various heights relate to the property and are very
friendly to the surrounding environment where we abut other
developments. The zoning that we ask for, as I mentioned earlier,
requests PO -ll zoning along the freeway frontage, even though the
master plan as depicted before you shows, I believe, four and five
story buildings. We feel we need this zoning to provide the
flexibility that we need to market those buildings to respond to the
needs of the ultimate user depending on what their uses might be
since they'll most likely be a large corporate user. With respect to
the quality level of the environment, I briefly touched base on that.
This will be a very high quality project similar to our other awarding
winning projects. These presentation boards that we have and the
materials you have before you only give a hint as to what the level
of quality will be for this projed. That, in essence, summarizes our
concept for the project. Our team members are now available to
answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Did I understand you to say that Fox Road is going to go through to
the projed?
Mr.Bednas: Go through?
Mr. Pieroecchi: Do you want to put the first board up again? Fox Road, you have a
section of it in black there.
19829
Mr. Bednas: This is Fox Drive. Presently Fox Drive exists from Six Mile Road up
to a point ...
Mr. Pieroecchi: Are you going to exte rid that?
Mr. Bednas: We intend to extend it into the project. Not only extend it, but right
now its a two-lane construction. The northerly portion of it will be
widened to at least three lanes. The southerly portion will probably
be boulevarded with fie introduction of a median, primarily to assist
sorting out the traffic and separating it from the inbound to the
outbound and giving the opportunity for southbound to westbound
traffic to freely exit if there are some people that want to go
southbound to eastbound, which is a difficult move at the present
time.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is it at all possible, sir, to go east and then go north all the way to
Seven Mile Road? This would take away a lot of traffic off
Haggerty Road, which could be very overburdened, not necessarily
from this project, but you know, on the other side of the street,
there's going to be a lot development going on, too, in the near
future. We have to look at both communities at the same time. Is it
not possible to bring that road straight through to Seven Mile Road,
and then you'd take all that traffic right off of...
Mr. Bednas:
You mean Fox Drive all the way through ... let me pull out another
board.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Fox Drive or I don't care what name it is.
Mr. Bednas:
We'd virtually bisect the ... let me pull out another board that...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Cant it go east a little bit and then north? There seems to be a lot
of vacant territory there.
Mr. Bednas:
This is my favorite presentation board because a picture is worth a
thousand words. We have Seven Mile at the lop of the board, Six
Mile at the bottom, 4275 on the right and Haggerty Road on the Teff.
The suggestion, I believe, is to extend Fox Drive through to Seven
Mile Road and ...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Obviously, you couldn't go straight ahead. You'd have to jog it.
Mr. Bednas:
It would really have a severe impact on the college campus, and I
don't believe the school is inclined to accept it.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You mean soccer fields and things of that nature? Is that what
you're referring lo? Is that what you calla serious impact?
19830
Mr.Bednas:
Pardon me?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is thatwhatyou meant by a serous impact on the college?
Mr. Bednas:
Well, I'm not sure what's happening here but this is, I'm sure,
probably a regulated wetland. I would probably defer it to the
college, but I suspect that they're holding these additional lands
and the soccer fields for future development, an expansion of the
college as their needs dictate. I think, and not to quarrel the point,
but taking the traffic through to Seven Mile would probably be
adding another 3,000 feet of roadway that is virtually useless to
everyone.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, not to Haggerty Road.
Mr.Bednas:
Pardon?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It wouldn't be to Haggerty Road. Would it be ridiculous to even
think about going across the expressway to lake traffic out of there?
Mr.Bednas:
Take it across the expressway?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes.
Mr. Bednas:
I guess I couldn't comment on that. That again would be a very
cost prohibitive proposal.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay.
Mr. Bednas:
I suspect the grades of the freeway would really preclude that
because the freeway does descend down to a low point
at the Six
Mile bridge and at the Seven Mile bridge, and the high points of the
freeway are in this location.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So basically what you're telling me is there's really no practical way
under the current land area to extend that road one way or the
other from Six Mile to Seven Mile Road?
Mr. Bednas:
I dont believe so.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay.
Mr. Bednas:
As I said, the Parsons Transportation Group is undertaking a study
at the present time. We are pretty confident that the results will be
that, although there will be some impact on Haggerty and Six Mile.
At least my initial reaction is that the primary impact will be in the
afternoon. The expectation is that two-thirds of the traffic for this
19831
project will be coming from the south up 1-275. People being
humans, the first and closest place to exit is Six Mile. They'll come
across Six Mile. There will be a very easy entry up Fox Drive into
the project, and that will be it. The real struggle will be ...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Will that be two way or one way?
Mr. Bednas:
That will be two ways. The real struggle will occur in the afternoon
with exiting traffic. There people do have an option to do somewhat
what you described because they can exit either the north driveway
or the north road by the college parking area, or this new driveway
and go north on Haggerty Road to Seven Mile, come back east on
Seven Mile to either go north or south on 1-275. There's also a third
possibility that people are very creative when it comes to finding a
way out. This is a signalized intersection here at this driveway and
this road that goes behind the Northville shopping center and by
Ward Church. There is a signal here. It comes down to a signal at
Six Mile, and it would be a very easy way to get back across Six
Mile Road again.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
When we talk about a comer, there's more to this picture than Six
Mile and Haggerty. I assume that your traffic study will also look at
Haggerty Road and Six and Seven Mile intersections, and
Newburgh Road and Six and Seven Mile intersections.
Mr. Bednas:
Just briefly, and I may have Joe confirm or tell me I'm wrong.
We're starting this intersection of the ramps on Six Mile, Fox Drive
and Quakertown and Six Mile, Haggerty and Six Mile, doing a study
at this location. This is a new location so that will be included, but
there's no counts to be taken. We will be taking counts here and
here as well.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Youjustciroled Seven and Haggerty?
Mr. Bednas:
Seven and Haggerty but not Newburgh.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You're notgolng to go eastto Newburgh?
Mr.Bednas:
No.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shane:
Are you far enough along with your traffic study to get an idea of
the impact of Fox Drive and Quakertown Drive and how that whole
thing is going to mesh when all of these people, particularly when
they're leaving and trying to exit out of Fox Drive onto the freeway?
Mr. Bednas:
You're speaking basically our project, notthe Quakertown people?
19832
Mr. Shane: Your project along with everyone else, but especially him yours is
Mr. Bednas:
I'll let Joe respond to that one because I really dont know where
he's at.
Mr. McCann:
Can you give us your name and address, sir?
Joseph A. Marson, Parsons Transportation Group, 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 300,
Detroit, Michigan 48226. As he said, we are doing a traffic impact
study. We are in the initial stages. We've had initial discussions
with representatives of the City and County looking at what road
improvements the County has investigated. There have been a lot
of other studies down in the area regarding traffic and some
potential solutions that have been discussed. We've made recent
traffic counts last week of the area, the intersections that he
mentioned. We haven't gone as far east as Newburgh Road
because what we've already found was that 85% of the traffic is
destined for 1275, both north and south on 4275. So, virtually all
the traffic is destined to the freeway, which means they will be
using Six Mile and Seven Mile Road to access it and wont be going
farther east toward Newburgh. There will be some, but not a
significant amount that there's enough to warrant Ioolting at those
intersections. I think in the coming two or three weeks we'll have a
lot of good answers. We've already looked at how much traffic this
would generate and the directions it would go, to and come from,
and what possible improvements they are. Part of our main focus
is on the Six Mile corridor and what can be done along there. We
know there are other developments in the area that are impacting
the intersection as well. So, we're looking at those things. But I
think we will find a lot of answers in the coming weeks.
Mr. Shane:
I have another question not related to traffic. Could you give me an
idea of the sequence of this project ... when it would begin, what
would go first, and so forth?
Mr. McCann:
Can we finish up on traffic?
Mr. Shane:
Sure, that's fine.
Mr. McCann:
Well, go ahead. Answer his question. I have a traffic question.
Mr. Bednas:
Sequencing . we're presently in the process of doing a
conceptual plan for the infrastructure of all the ufilities and
preliminary alignment of the roadways and getting that ready to go
through a review with the City and the City Engineer to get started
on that. The initial marketing demands, of course, are the
19833
restaurants and the retail center. I suspect the only thing that we
know with any certainty, assuming we are successful in rezoning, is
what this building represents in program and scope. It's 14,000
feet. It will have seven or eight tenants. So our intention would be
to do this retail center first. Rob Wineman is here; he can speak to
the activity on the restaurants. There are a number of parties that
are interested. I believe we are talking about upscale seafood and
maybe that red beef or whatever that is. Because that's the initial
demand that we're aware of, that's probably what's going to happen
first. The offices, of course, are subject to interest from the
marketplace. We are presently studying this three-story building in
the center of the property as being potentially the first office building
that we'd put up. If we're successful in finding a tenant for half of
that space, we would probably proceed with that as well. Backing
up to what I said earlier, what we did here with the restaurants and
the retail is an excellent example of what we're trying to do with
Haggerty. To get to the retail center, you have to come in this
driveway and enter the property, and then you can either continue
on into the project or go back out that roadway. To get to the
restaurants, the same thing. You have to come in that one
driveway and use this internal roadway and then get out either
using the existing one at the college or go back to this one. There
are no curb cuts proposed for the restaurants or the retail center at
Haggerty. That alone eliminates a considerable amount of turning
movements and stopping movements on Haggerty Road. I don't
know if that answers your question.
Mr. Marson: The project will probably progress from the west toward the east
Mr. La Pine: I have a number of questions. Number one, we haven't talked
about how you're going to handle the storm water. Are there going
to be stone water basins? How is the water management going to
be handled? I dont think the stone sewers in that particular area
can handle this big of a load without something being done.
Mr. Bednas: The storm water system will be designed as is required by all
current regulations where you're regulated to agricultural runoff.
So, detention basins will be provided. They are just vaguely shown
on this plan in areas where it's adjacent to the buildings. So these
detention basins will be established and they will ultimately feed ...
what they do is hold the water, and they just meter it out into the
drain at the prescribed agricultural rate.
Mr. La Pine: The point is, we're talking a lot of raw land and putting concrete on
it, which means the runoff is going to be considerable. There isn't
going to be any land to suck up the water per se. That's a problem
for me because at this end of town, we do have some problems
with water management. So I want to make sure that is taken care
19834
of. The other question is, one of the things the Engineering
Department said, the sanitary sewer. Its only a ten -inch sanitary
sewer line up there. By no means of the imagination can that
handle this project. Are you going to be able to handle that by
boring under k275?
Mr. Bednas: If that's the only option that's available, that's what we'll have to do.
We are presently in the process of doing our analysis on what the
entire loads on the system would be. We haven't had an
opportunity to sit down with the City Engineer and review his
comments, but we'll certainly do that as soon as we can. There is
another option available, which crosses jurisdictional boundaries.
There is either a 21" or 24" sanitary sewer along Haggerty Road on
NorlWlle's side of the street. There might be an opportunity to tap
that as well.
Mr. LaPine: The other question and probably the main concem for me is the
traffic problem. Contrary to what you might say or the study by
your traffic engineer, there are problems in this area with traffic.
From my perspective, we have to lake into consideration not only
this parcel, but what's happening to the west of us in Northville.
Nobody wants to talk about Northville. But no matter what happens
in Northville, we got the property in Northville. There is the
possibility that the Hawthorne Center is going to close down and be
developed. You've got the psychiatric hospital that's going to be
sold and all that property. That's on Seven Mile Road. Now the
only way to get to those two projects is off the expressway because
the expressway exits are in Livonia. They have to go through
Livonia. They've got to go through Seven Mile; they've got to go
Six Mile. That's a big impact on Livonia. That's the problem we're
going to have with that additional traffic as that development gets
going. It may be five years from now; it may be ten years from
now. Back in 1988 when I was on this Board and we denied the
Duke Associates project on part of this land, we were worried about
what was going to happen in the next few years. And since that
time, a lot of development has taken place along that corridor.
You've got a shopping center; you've got an addition to that
shopping center going in there now. You have Ward Presbyterian
Church in there now. There's a lot of development along that
corridor, and it creates a lot of traffic. I think the most important
thing for us . . we have to make sure that we're not putting a
burden on the businesses and the individual owned homes in that
area, that theyre not going to be able to get out of their
subdivisions or the businesses or the office buildings, or they're
going to have a problem. When you tell me that most of the traffic
is going to go up Haggerty to Seven Mile Road and then tum right
to gel on the expressway, you have to remember there's a lot of
traffic coming out of the Dave Johnson project. There are two
19835
office buildings, 150,000 square feet each, that haven't even been
developed yet but are on-line to be developed. That's going to also
create traffic problems. And to me, we've got to look at this thing
from a real hard look at the traffic. Now let me ask you this:
because on both sides of Haggerty Road, there's a lot of room
there. There are setbacks for the shopping centers and everything.
Is it a possibility that land can be dedicated from Six Mile to Seven
Mile to widen Haggerty Road, put a boulevard in there, and make
more lanes of traffic?
Mr. Bednas: The quick answer, I would say not.
Mr. LaPine: Why?
Mr. Bednas: You've got a lot of preexisting development that Northville has
done with this retail center here.
Mr. LaPine: Yes, but it sets back from Haggerty quite a distance.
Mr. Bednas: It may appear that way, but to do a boulevarded roadway, requires I
believe a 204 fool or 210 fool right-of-way. Haggerty Road is right
now 120 feet.
Mr. LaPine: 120 feel.
Mr. Bednas: So you're virtually almost doubling the right-of-way required. Its
possible. I would go to your friendly neighboring community to the
west that created all these problems and try to take all along the
frontage of Haggerty and that location would probably be the
easiest way to do that. You've got Comerica at this comer that's
pretty well built out. There are not too many opportunities there.
But certainly long term, I'm not sure what the recommendations will
be.
Mr. LaPine: Well, the problem is, we have to look at it long term. I cant look at
what's going to happen tomorrow or a month from now or maybe
five years from now. We'll have such a mess there it would be like
it was on Big Beaver in Troy before they widened that road to six or
seven lanes on each side because they had such a traffic problem.
I can see that happening along this corridor. Eight Mile and
Haggerty Road now is a mess, an absolute mess.
Mr. Bednas: I don't disagree with you.
Mr. LaPine: I live off of Seven Mile Road. If I want to go to Home Depot on
Seven Mile Road and Haggerty, I don't want to wait for the light to
make a right hand turn and then try to shoot over to make a left
hand tum into the shopping center or else I can go up Seven Mile
19836
and come around. I cul through the theatre parking lot and go up
around that way if I go to Costco. We shouldn't have to do that.
We've created this problem by, not saying over building, but we
didn't create the infrastructure to handle what we're asking to be
done here. I'm not opposed to this project. I just want to make
sure we're not going to have some problems today or five years or
len years down the line.
Mr. Bednas: If I may go back to our point, we've got some metering devices
here. We believe that the morning peak hour will not be a problem
because Fox Drive is very close to the freeway system, and we
believe most of the office traffic will be using Fox Drive and it will be
a quick in. The restaurants and the retail are sporadic for the most
part throughout the day, so they don't have A.M. peaks and P.M.
peaks. Again, the P.M. peak has these metering devices. It's got
this driveway with a signal; this driveway which, depending on what
the traffic study says, may recommend a signal as well, and this
one, which is kind of a dilemma but we're exploring all the options
as to what to do with Fox Drive and Six Mile. The traffic that's here
in College Park, in the office buildings, that wants to leave at 5:00,
their either going to leave at 4:30 or 5:00 or 5:30 depending on
what their needs are to avoid the traffic. But lheyre going to be
metered out onto Haggerty or Six Mile by those intersections.
Mr. La Pine: That's one of the problems. We only have two ways to get out of
here, either Six Mile or Haggerty. Six Mile to tum left to go over to
the expressway or out to Haggerty and go north to get on the
expressway. That's the only way you can eliminate that. You can't
go south and get on the expressway. Its impossible. Mr.
Piercecchi and I were out there Monday of this week. We came
west on Six Mile Road, turned left onto Haggerty because we
wanted to go through Quakertown. We sal there for three lights to
make a left hand tum. This was at 10:30 in the morning. Five cars
made it through each light. Now maybe the light signals are timed
differently at that time. I do not know. But then we went through
Quakertown, we came back to Six Mile Road. We wanted to make
a left hand tum. We couldn't make a left hand turn there was so
much traffic. We had to go west. So there are problems and I'm
trying to make sure those problems are eliminated before we go
inlosuch a big project as this.
Mr.Bednas: I can assure you that Haggerty and Six Mile Road will be
addressed by the Parsons Transportation Group during their study.
Three weeks ago we had a preliminary meeting with the Planning
Department, the City Engineer and the Wayne County Traffic
Engineer, Victoria Holland. She pretty much acknowledged that
Wayne County, and for reasons that escape me, does not have any
very sophisticated signalized intersections. They are all basically
19837
on mechanical timers and that's why what you experienced occurs.
Whether the need is there or not, that traffic signal has to wait for
whatever it's programmed to do before it will change from red to
green or whatever. Oakland Canty and some others and the
State have gone to high traffic intersections and computerized
them, either with cameras or detectors or infrared devices that
actually recognize who is waiting to do what and facilitate those
moves. That might be an option that we can come up with.
Mr. LaPine: Lel me just say one more thing, and then I'm going to give up the
floor because I have other things that I can discuss but we're not
going to settle them tonight. You keep telling me that you're going
to be looking at Six Mile and Haggerty. You've got to look at Seven
Mile and Haggerty because part of the problem with Seven Mile
and Haggerty is SchoolcmR's problem. They have three buildings
along Seven Mile Road. That's all part of the project. The whole
project is Schoolcrett properly. So the problem is inner -woven no
matter which way you look at it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: Obviously the major concern, as you can see, is going to be traffic.
When we looked at this on prior occasions, Fox Drive is a problem.
It does not align with Quakertown. Its a real headache for the
residents of Quakertown. We perceive this as making a problem
an impossibility for them. I'm not against the project per se, but I've
been trying to come up with solutions. If you lake a look at Fox
Drive where it comes down here, if you start putting lett hand turn
traffic in there onto Six Mile going eastbound, it will just deadlock
everything. I thought about right turn only from Fox Drive, but I still
don't believe that will alleviate the problems. I agree with you that
80 percent of the traffic coming into the project in the morning will
be coming in off F275. It should not create a problem. In the
evenings when we have the biggest problem, its going to be the
traffic exiting there. These buildings here, the Embassy Suites and
the restaurants, already are using that drive as an exit. I would like
you to consider, as the developer, whether or not from this point
forward this road could become a one-way entrance only into the
project, so that it would either have to come out here and come
back, but it would not create the deadlock in there if it was one-way
only north of the Embassy Suites. I think the traffic study should be
addressed in that manner, too, to lake a look at the different
impacts of having that traffic coming back onto Six Mile at peak
times. Is that something that you've addressed at this point?
Mr. Bednas: We can certainly have the consultant explore that option. Unless
we have a creative solution b what occurs here, I don't think a lot
of people are going to try to gel out that way anyway. You're right.
You have to give the hotels that flexibility. Its an allowable tum
right now to make a left tum at Six Mile. For the traffic that wants to
IFi:Ril
get on Interstate 275, 1 think you have to give them that option. But
this certainly could be a possibility, and we'll have our consultant
comment on it.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Did you say make a Ieftturn from Fox onto Six Mile Road?
Mr. Bednas:
Right. That's a permissible move now.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
They have to cross that lane. That will never happen. You cannot
make a left hand turn on any of those roads and cross the lane. Its
impossible. Ask the people living in Quakertown. They cannot
make a turn. Everybody makes right turns.
Mr. Bednas:
I have a larger photograph. For the Quakertown people to make a
nghl tum out is fairly easy.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
They can do that.
Mr. Bednas:
If they want to go north on Haggerty or vest on Six Mile, I don't
understand why they don't use the street that comes out to
Haggerty Road on the west side of their subdivision.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Its still a problem making a left hand tum. But now they have to
make a left tum onto Haggerty. I won't belabor the point, but I think
our Chairman brought up a good point about studying that. Initially
you said that was going to be a two-way. Perhaps it should be a
one-way or maybe one-way during certain hours. I don't know.
That's up to you guys to figure out that stuff. The smart lights for
controlling traffic that are run by television cameras ...the Director
here brought that up yesterday in a conversation. They sight the
way the system is and then they correspondingly do it rather than
running on timers and repetitions and same intervals for 24 hours.
They respond to what they see. Hopefully, you will look at that too.
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, we will.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? I believe we have a number of residents that would
like to speak. Please keep your comments within two minutes.
James Blain, James Blain & Associates, 39209 Six Mile, Livonia. By the way, I've
never done this presentation in this way. Usually I'm on the other
side, but I want to give you my professional comments as a
registered architect. I've worked with many planners. I do this on a
19839
weekly basis. I've been in front of this Board and the Council for
close to 20 years. And I have the utmost respect for the City of
Livonia. The reason I do is because I see all the communities
around the United States and in Michigan and around Detroit, and
I've seen it for a number of years. Past planning boards, past
councils in the City of Livonia, and past board and councils in
Northville have made decisions and approved plans based on the
fact that SchoolcreR College was Schoolcraft College. I was
approved. The shopping center was approved. In fact, the
SchoolcraR property was approved and those approvals were made
with the fact that this was going to be a college and the property
was zoned the way it was zoned. The infrastructure, in my
professional opinion, that we have presently which is, believe me,
Mr. LaPine, you're right. This infrastructure is marginal right now. I
live there. I'm there, unfortunately, 12 hours a day, half a day. And
I hear from tenants who are in my buildings, my staff and I see it.
This infrastructure is marginal today. My approval, this approval
and the other approvals, the potential approvals for the psychiatric
property, which we all know is going to be something, never
contemplated this being developed in this fashion. I saw the RFP
from School craft College. It said on that RFP that they didn't want
office because they knew what the potential problems could be.
Fox Drive in Quakertown, and I'll be out of here in a second, that
will never work. You can tum left only. Whatever way you want to
tum, it won't work. The backup on Haggerty Road at Six Mile at
limes is 40 - 50 cars because of SchoolcraR College, Comerica and
the shopping center here. I'm just saying you must really study
this. I dont stand up here and do this. I don't want to stand up
here and do this. I've been on the other side of this. You're
absolutely right, Mr. LaPine. Decisions were made, and H knows
this, based on the fad that this was going to be SchoolcraR
College. So that's what I have to say. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Blain, didn'lyou have a proposal to go in to build a building at
this location orwas it where the Maniott Suites was at one time?
No?
Mr.
Blain:
No. All I've ever done is this and put an addition on my building. I
owned all this property to begin with.
Mr.
McCann:
We had an office structure thatwas going logo in where the hotels
are at one time.
Mr.
Blain:
No, I was never ever involved in that.
Mr.
McCann:
Okay. Thank you.
19840
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing ro one, I'm going to close the public
hearing. Mr. Walkon, any last comments?
Mr. Walkon:
Just a point of correction so that the record will be clear. The
gentlemen mentioned the request for proposal from Schoolcraft
College. The preference in the request for proposal was office.
The type of development that was least welcomed was retail.
There was also kind of a middle level which was high rise
apartments, which was one of the potential choices when the
developers, from all over the United States, not just from Livonia,
they chose office. Now as to Schoolcra0 ever developing their
property, SchoolcraR has been a wonderful partner to us in
educating us and working with us, but they are also entitled to go in
for a redevelopment of their property rather than going for higher
bond issues. So other than that, I appreciate, as has been
discussed tonight, the major issue, and we knew that coming in.
We appreciate you giving us some pointers and giving the Parsons
Group some pointers as to what to look for. The major issue,
without a question, is traffic, and our job is going to be to solve,
along with Northville Township, some of the problems that have
been developed over a period of many years. We appreciate your
concern and your questions and comments tonight. Thank you
very much.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pieroecohi, and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-143-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-10-01-13, submitted by SchoolcmR Commons, LLC,
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest %
of Section 7, from PL and R5C to G2, OS, PO and PO -II, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-
10-01-13 be tabled until the Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
of January 14, 2003.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Walkon, do you have a date for us when that traffic study is
going to be ready?
Mr. Walkon:
Yes, it will probably be the first week of January.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, do you have a suggestion with regard to that?
Should we leave it open and you'll place it on the agenda when
19841
we're presented with the taffc study, or do you want to set d for a
date now so we get it on the calendar.
Mr. Taormina: I think a date certain, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: January 14 would be the first available meeting.
Mr. Taormina: We presently have five items that will appear on that agenda, four
of which are shown on your tentative meeting schedule. I would
like to have sufficient time to review that traffic analysis before it
actually appears at the meeting. As long as we do have the report
the first week of January, that would at least give us the week
before the meeting to review it.
Mr. Shane: To be safe, why don't we make it January 28?
Mr. McCann: Mr. Walkon, can you live with the January 28 meeting?
Mr. Walkon: Our strong preference would be January 14. As pu know, today
we have a six or seven week waiting period. We have a contract
with SchoolcmR College with deadlines in it, so we would
respectfully request January 14.
Mr. McCann: As long as the plans were to your office by January 4, do you think
you'd be ready for our study meeting on the 7r"?
Mr. Taormina: We would be able to include that information in your packets and
distribute it to the various departments.
Mr. McCann: What we'll do is plan on you for that meeting. We wont schedule
anything further if thats okay with the Commissioners as long as
the traffic study is in and any improvements to the site that
correspond to it are in by the V or 4"'. Is that okay, Mr. Walkon?
Mr. Walkon: Thank you, Mr. McCann. I appreciate that. Is that okay with the
Commissioners?
Mr.
Shane:
I just want to make sure that the traffic study is here.
Mr.
McCann:
I agree, but they won't put it on the schedule unless it is.
Mr.
Shane:
Fine.
Mr.
McCann:
Please call the roll.
19842
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES: La Pine, Shane, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Alanskas, Walsh
ABSENT: Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. La Pine: Mr. Chairman, before we move on, I didn't want the tabling motion
made before I asked the staff for a number of things I'd like them to
get for me. Mark, if you would. I want you to look at the possibility
of additional right-of-way on the east and west side of Haggerty
Road in conjunction with meeting with Northville Township to see if
there is any possibility that something can be worked out.
Extending Fox Road to Seven Mile Road or construct a new road
through the SchoolcreR College campus and also look at the
possibility of, right now on the Seven Mile and Haggerty, you can't
make a right hand tum on a red light. Maybe there's a possibility
that we can put a turn lane in there. Also, the Iasi study I have on
the number of offices is 1999. 1 dont want you b go through the
whole City, but I'd like to gel the total number of square footage of
office space between Newburgh and Haggerty and Six and Seven
Mile Roads. How much that's now on line that's there today. How
much new construction is approved and not constructed yet, which
would induce the David Johnson property, including the property
where Providence Hospital is going to go on. I'd like to know the
percentage of vacancies within that two mile area at this time. In
conclusion, I'd just like to make a statement. With a development
of this magnitude, we don't want to rush into anything. We have to
make sure that the proposal has all that we need to generate the
best revenue for the City and complement its surroundings. What
we have to make sure of in my view is what is good for Livonia in
the long haul. I'm more worried about five years from now than I
am about tomorrow. We need to consider this petition in relation to
the entire City of Livonia and especially to the two square miles.
Thankyou.
Messrs. Walsh and Alanskas returned lothe Board at approximately 8:40 p.m
19843
ITEM #2
PETITION 2002-10-01-14 LEO SOAVE BUILDING
Mr. Piercecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
10-01-14, submitted by Leo Soave Building Company requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Cavell Avenue between
Five Mile Road and Western Golf Drive in the Northeast % of
Section 24 from RILF to R-2.
Mr. Taormina presented
a mapshowing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding
area.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated October 28, 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, water mains and storm sewers in
the vicinity of the proposed development. There is no additional
right-of-way required at this site. There are errors in two of the
legal descriptions which should be connected as follows .... We
trust that this will provide you with the information requested.
Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions."
The letter is sgned by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. As Mr. Taormina said,
we are proposing an 18 unit site condominium project. Once this is
approved, we're going to propose a 31 fool concrete road. The
houses will range from $275,000 on up. In the case of a two-story,
this is going to about 65% brick. A single story would be about
80% brick. Thank you. I'll answer your questions.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Have you ever tried to purchase the rear of the lots to the north of
this property?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir. Most of the people were approached and some did want
to sell and some didn't. So until that happens, nothing is going to
happen.
Mr. LaPine:
Because I can see somewhere along the line -- I've seen it happen
too many times where we approve a project like this, then the
people down the street who were reluctant to sell, decide, well,
rPODEV,
we've got these houses, we might as well sell our portion of R. If
I'm going to develop this, I'd like to see it developed in one big
swoop, and we might get a better type of a development out of R.
But you have tried to get those properties?
Mr. Soave: Yes, we have.
Mr. La Pine: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? It looks like we do have some people who are
interested tonight. I would ask you to keep your comments to two
minutes.
Calvin Fintor, 14777 Cavell. Good evening. Mine is the property that's adjacent to
the end of this project. I have a number of concerns. Number one,
the width of that road and what about emergency vehicles? Where
are they going to tum around? Number two, I'll be sitting there
eating my dinner, and I'm going to have headlights of people
coming down the end of a dead end street with their headlights
shining into my dining room. And number three, vhat about the
storm system? Its all day back there. We gel flooded now. We
gel a little bit of rain and it stays wet back there for three days.
Where is the water going to go? I'd like to know if the width of that
road back there is up to code.
Mr. McCann: We could require a variance. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina? It's
only a preliminary plan that I have, but it shows a 50 fool wide right -
of way on the road. That would require a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals, would it not?
Mr. Taormina: Actually, the reduction in the right -0f -way is something that the
Planning Commission and the Council can approve as a waiver at
the time the plat is presented.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask if the width of the pavement will be the
properwidth?
Mr. McCann: 31 fool.
Mr. Taormina: That's correct.
Mr. McCann: So the pavement will be standard size.
Mr. Finlor: And what are they going to do with emergency vehicles if a fire
truck has to gel down there?
19845
Mr. McCann: Its the standard width of all the streets in Livonia for subdivisions
Mr. Finlor:
Yeah, but it's going to be a dead end.
Mr. Alanskas:
It will have a'7 turnaround.
Mr. McCann:
I believe we've used a 'T' turnaround in numerous subdivisions
throughout the City. The Fire Department will have to prove that
they can get their equipment down there and tum around. That's
one of the things that we do is provide copies of the plan to the Fire
Department and they make that determination. These "T"
turnarounds are used within the City. I do have a question for you.
You said that your home will be at the end of the street?
Mr. Finlor:
Yes. My yard is 82.5 by 528, and that street, from what I could see
on the plans, that street ends right in the middle of my backyard, off
the edge of it.
Mr. McCann:
Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out. What's the setback from
Cavell of your home?
Mr. Fintor:
I don't know. It's back farther than both of my neighbors.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, can you tell from the aerial photograph whether or
not it would be affected?
Mr. La Pine:
What's your name again, sill
Mr. Finlor
Finlor. F-i-rvl-o-r. 14777.
Mr. Taormina: His house is set back a little bit further than the abutting house to
the south. I'm going to estimate that where the road would abut his
properly line would be about 300 feet from the actual residence.
But it would, as he indicated, terminate along his south property
line, but not directly across from his residence.
Mr. La Pine: But anybody going up that road, if he's 300 feel from it, they aren't
going to be shining into his house, are they?
Mr. Shane: Only maybe momentarily when they tum in their driveway or
something or tum south.
Mr. Fintor: If they tum around there, I'm going to have headlights shining right
in my doorwall.
Mr. McCann: Okay. Thank you.
19846
Paul Brasseur,
27740 Western Golf Court. Like all of other original owners in
Western Golf Estates, I purchased a premium lot. It was,
incidentally, adjacent to the wooded area. All of the people who
purchase a premium lot were, in fact, adjacent to that wooded area
or amid a cul-de-sac on the other side of the project. My immediate
concern at that point, was, "Gee whiz, will this ever be developed?"
I was assured both by the contractors, Sue Roskelly, as well as the
developer, William Roskelly, that it wasn't feasible to develop this
area for two reasons: one, the multiple ownership of the properties
that are adjacent to the subdivision, as well as the fact that the
topography, in his opinion, was not developable based upon the
amount of water that you've got in the ground in that area. Western
Golf Estates was originally developed from a lake. In my particular
case, I back up to the proposed building construction area and,
quite frankly, I'm three feet below the current grade. I currently
have four adjacent neighbors, all of whom have sprinkler systems.
I currently have about 400 feet of my yard under water winter and
summer based upon the current approved gradient that was
developed in the corner of my property. Quite frankly, when the
sprinkler system comes on or you get a heavy rain, I can't walk the
perimeter of my property without being ankle deep in mud. Two
more lots in the back that are three feel higher than my current
property and with two more sprinkler systems coming from the site
condo valued at $275,000 and the likelihood ... you're going to
wash my yard out. And that's why I'm opposed to 2002-10-01-14.
Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
Could you tell me your lot number?
Mr. Brasseur:
Lot 85.
Mr.Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
If the Commission doesn't object ... Mr. Taormina, this is a zoning
petition yet I don't believe we have all the information. Would the
existing grade actually be three feet higher for these homes than
the existing homes off of Western Golf or Santa Anila?
Mr. Taormina:
It's premature for us to make that determination. I do see that there
is some grade change, particularly in the southwest comer of this
property, which is the area I believe this gentleman was referring to.
But what the finish grade elevators of the houses or the roads will
be, we don't have any of that information at this point.
Mr. Brassem:
I would have to say that all the pmperfies on the south side are, in
fact, similar. They are a good three feet below the current grade of
the wooded area. Once that's stripped off, deforested, the sod
goes in and the sprinkler systems go in below ... it's a swamp
19847
back there as it is. Its not going to gel better. It's gang to get a lot
worse and a lot quicker.
Alice Malichefsky Curtin, 14680 Santa Anila. Lot 66. I'm opposed to the subdivision
going in behind me. I bought the lot specifically for less neighbors,
privacy. I put up a privacy fence. The same problem happens in
my backyard. Its under water. Any time it rains, we get a heavy
min, its under water. I'm concemed with the wildlife that's been
there since our moving into the area. Of course, there is a lot less
animal life since we had the subdivision completely finished now.
But prior to that, that was the only area where we had foxes; we
had geese. All the kids in the neighborhood used the trails to go
through there, and it will be gone. My concern is that there will be
no trees. Our subdivision doesn't have any mature trees as it is,
and the only trees that are mature are right against our property line
where the new subdivision wants to go in. So, I just want it noted
that l oppose that.
Brace LeBlanc, 27686 Western Golf. I'm against the development. I'm a fire captain
in Dearborn, and I believe that a one-way dead-end road causes a
problem. And I'm sure the Livonia Fire Department will find the
same thing.
Mr. McCann: What does your button say? I've seen many people with the
buttons on tonight?
Mr. LeBlanc: This is FOSIL for open land.
Mr. McCann: Thankyou.
Debra Lowman, 14636 Santa Anita. I'm Lot 68. I'm also an original homeowner in
that subdivision, and I am opposed to the development that's put
before us mainly because of the things that I bel are in conflict of
what the Planning Commission has possibly already said. Our
attorney is going to speak to this. So I'm here to support him and
all the rest of my homeowners in the Association. He's going to
speak tonight for me.
Mr. McCann: Thafs fine. I don't think there's been any determination at this
point, though.
Ms. Lowman: No, I know, but he's going to speak on our behalf.
Mr. McCann: That's fine.
Jan Afonso, 9918 Hubbard. I'm speaking to you tonight as the President of Friends
of Open Spaces in Livonia, a nonprofit 501C4 organization, a land
use advocacy group with a list of supporters that grans with every
ILDE, l
project of this sort that is proposed. Your phones may not ring off
the hook with these issues, gentlemen, but mine does. More than
any other issue, Livonia citizens call with concerns over the
relentless rezoning assaults on rural urban farm properties and the
subsequent infilling of these areas with high density mini -subs,
configurations of greater population of this sort being proposed
here tonight. The FOSIL Board of Directors asks you to support the
residents here tonight who are asking you to oppose this rezoning
request because we believe that this is precisely how the much
prized country-in-thecity open character of the Livonia landscape
will be lost incrementally, one small plot of backyards at a time. We
ask that you not participate in this process and that you consider
looking forward to reflecting on your tenure as City Commissioners
who upheld the intent of the original City Planners and who upheld
the intent of the Livonia Master Plan that gained for this City the
distinction of best planned City in Michigan. Please oppose this
rezoningrequest tonight. Thank you.
Suheil Shatara, 27718 Western Golf Court, Lot 88. I'm neighbor to Paul; he just
spoke a few minutes ago. We have the same issue as Paul has
and my other neighbors. Whenever it rains, I have to shut down
actually my sprinklers because of the muddy situation we have.
Also, a power outage .... we got a lot of power outage in that part
of the subdivision on Western Golf Court as well as Santa Anita, I
believe. Every time there is electricity overconsumption or
ovedoad, our part of the subdivision goes down. We don't have
power, while the rest of the subdivision, they have power. So it
must be connected someway; I'm pretty sure. Down the road you
will be looking to that if anything happens with this. I agree with all
my neighbors about opposing this proposed construction or
development.
Mr. Atanskas:
Sir, how long have you lived at this residence?
Mr. Shatare:
I've been there only a year and a half, and when we bought the
house, actually we bought it because of the wooded area.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you've had a water problem for a least a year and a half?
Mr. Shatare:
Well, every time it rains, yes. My backyard is muddied.
Mr. Alanskas:
Have you called anybody to find out what could be done to alleviate
your problem?
Mr. Shatare:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Until tonight. Okay. Thank you.
19849
Biagio Bill Gucciardo, 27674 Western Golf Court. My lot number is 88. 1 back up to
the proposed new area. As it was mentioned before, this area is at
least three feet above my backyard property. I have a drain in my
backyard with the 20 feet access, and this drain is constantly
running with water draining into it all the time right now. I am
somewhat afraid that if this does go through and if they do bring
this down to grade, it's going to be even worse. Right now the
trees and everything else are absorbing some of this water. I would
be getting more of it. My sump pump goes almost constantly
because of the water level. It is clay -based back there, and it
seems like there are springs coming up still in this area between my
house and Mr. LeBlanc. Next door to me there is a soggy area you
can't even walk on there. You have a hard time cutting the grass. I
don't know what they can do about this, but to me, right now, my
backyard is dry because of that drain. But if they're going to tie into
this drain, that means they would probably have to level this thing
down and our backyards would be coming down. I would be in the
same situation as it was mentioned before where we would have a
constant lake in our back area like that, and it would just be bad.
Patsy LeBlanc, 27696 Western Golf Drive, Lot 87. 1 am totally opposed to this.
When I bought our house, we bought a premium lot. We paid extra
money for it. And to me, this was my life dream to have a wooded
backyard, and I'm very upset that theyre even talking about this.
We, loo, have a drain. Well, actually our neighbor has a drain on
the northwest comer of his yard, which is constantly running. We
went through three sump pumps already. I'm one of the original
owners. I've been there since 1993. We've replaced our sump
pump three times. It runs all the time. So I wanted to come here
tonight to let you know that I'm opposed to this also.
At Wozniak, 14702 Santa Anita, Lot 65. I'd just like to reinforce what some of my
neighbors have already said. I'm the original owner at that lot back
in '94 and paid a premium for that parcel of land and was told the
reason why it cost so much is because "you have woods in your
backyard, sir, and that's why we have to charge an extra amount of
money." And I agreed to pay that because, as my other neighbors
have said, I don't like to have anybody in my backyard. I like to
have the privacy. I think we have a bigger issue of aesthetics here
as far as the open spaces and woods. We don't need to mow
down everything that we have in order to put up houses and
condominiums. I'd also like to say one other thing. From what I'm
hearing here, I would ask the question, if there is any sort of an
DNR issue concerning wetlands in the back or DEQ that have been
looked at or tested for or reviewed based on what I'm hearing and
what l know to be back there. Thank you.
19850
Rod Dunlap, 37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 230, Farmington Hills 48335. I'm an
attorney, and I have been retained by a number of the homeowners
in order to address some of these issues. I have spoken with the
homeowners, and they are not in a position where this has to be a
permanent park, but they are in a position where we need to look at
this particular proposal and look at some of the issues that are
being raised on it. First of all, this properly is currently zoned where
it can be used for RUF properly, which is one-half acre parcels. It
is a permissible use. What he is trying to do is expand that to
create an even higher density than what was proposed by this
particular Planning Commission. Now this Planning Commission
has put together a Master Plan, and I know it's been well thought
out and I know these things take a lot of time to put together. In
this particular Master Plan, that property is called to be Iow density
residential property. And low density residential property is the
lowest density of residential property contemplated, which is one to
four units per acre. Currently, in RUF that's two per acre, so it's
fine. What he's proposing to do is put it into an area which actually
is a higher density than the maximum in the Master Plan, and I
think that's asking loo much. He could ask for R-1, he could ask for
R-2, R-3, R4, R-5 or stay with the RUF that he has. He's
overreaching by going into R-2. I think that is something that
should not be considered at all, although I know this Planning
Commission certainly can make recommendations on a number of
issues, as well as making a recommendation to turn it down right
out. But I would say that R-2, you know, my suggestion would be
to just turn it down right out because it just exceeds everything that
is in the Master Plan. As you know, this is not an ancient Master
Plan. It's just a couple months old. As far as the turnaround, this is
an issue that I think should be addressed by the developer. Now,
he has not come forward and said what he's going to do about it,
but I know, in representing many developers in many communities,
a turnaround for emergency vehides is something that is commonly
requested, and that is something that is not being brought forward
here. You have a road that already needs to have an exception to
it. Its not 66 feet wide. He has a 50 fool wide area, so he can put
houses on either side of the properly. By trying to maximize this
already overly dense land, what he is doing is creating some other
problems with the road and creating a problem for emergency
vehides. Another issue is the trees and the greenbelt issue that
has been talked about by some of these parties. It is something
that Mr. Soave should know. Mr. Soave and Mr. Roskelly, the
original owner, have had a lot of developments together in Livonia.
I am sure that if representations were made by Mr. Roskelly or Sue
Roskelly to these different homeowners, they probably spoke with
Mr. Soave about that. It's something that he could address. He
has an opportunity as a developer asking for you to do a favor for
him, totake the RUF zoning and tum it into R-2 properlylo...
19851
Mr. McCann: Just to clarify, I dont think it would be termed as a 'favor." Mr
Soave has come before a body of the City, which he has a legal
fight to do as you are aware. It wouldn't be a favor. We have to
make a determination whether or not it's good planning and make a
recommendation to the Council. We don't do favors.
Mr. Dunlap:
I did not mean it in any way in that respect, but I just mean as far as
the burden of proof. The burden of proof is something that he has.
It is something that you can grant him or you don't have to grant
him. It is something that is clearly within the power of this body
and, of course, the City Council. I'm saying in light of that, there is
an issue that he could address if this matter were to be tabled, and
say, "Okay, maybe we'll handle the greenbelt issue." Maybe we'll
give them five feel, len feet, twenty feet of wooded area along that
path so that it would be conciliatory for some of the parties based
on some of their expectations. I mean he has carved out lots from
lots that did not previously exist in order to create this proposed
development.
Mr. McCann:
Just for audience communication, I did ask for a limit of two
minutes, but since you're representing a group of these people and
speaking on behalf of them, I'm allowing you the extra time.
Mr. Dunlap:
Thank you, Mr. McCann, and thank you members of the board. I
really do appreciate that. And they do loo. Obviously you know
that it's not cheap to hire an attorney to come in here and do this,
and they are very serious about it. You can tell by the numbers as
well that they are very serious about this particular issue. I do think
that there is a point that also needs to be considered that we don't
know the answer to and that is, what type of ownership interest is
really involved here? I mean, does he have options on these
parcels so in deciding whether or not to rezone property and
change the zoning, what is really going to happen with this
property.? I don't think he's really addressed that as to, does he
have options? Does he own the property outright? Are there other
parcels that maybe are considered as part of a bigger plan? These
are some of the things that the homeowners really need to know as
well. As far as a topographical map, I didn't see anything here.
Maybe it's something that you're aware of, but there's clearly some
flooding issues here. And the flooding issues can create
topographical issues that may be problems for these homeowners.
The soil conditions may be an issue. There is no information on
that before the rezoning is to be considered. And furthermore, the
wetlands issues, as I'm sure the members of the Planning
Commission are aware, when you have a lot of wet property, you
have wetland type of vegetation that may actually exist right there.
And wetland vegetation may trigger the DEQ to say that, "Look, you
19852
can't development this part. You need to develop that part." I
haven't seen any kind of a plan like that to say that these are
certain areas where we can't develop and these are certain areas
where we can. Maybe that's been done, but I haven't heard
anything about that. The storm water issues seem to be another
issue that should be considered overall before this property is going
to be allowed for a higher density. And also, FOSIL, Friends of
Open Spaces in Livonia, has raised an issue that I know is an
ongoing issue with Livonia as with a lot of communities. Its one
that Livonia has listened to on a lot of occasions. Do you want to
take every parcel of property and maximize as many lots as you
possible can with the valued space that is Teff in Livonia. Perhaps
another plan could be set forth which would provide some open
space, which would provide some green space, a greenbelt,
something else other than just developing it even beyond what the
recommendations of this Planning Commission had done in the
Master Plan. So those are some of the issues that I would simply
ask that would be addressed by the developer. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. McCann, I'd like to just ask the attorney one question if I may.
Mr. McCann:
Sure.
Mr. Walsh:
Early on in your comments, and this is just for clarification
purposes, you indicated that Mr. Soave and Mr. Roskelly had
worked together and you think that they may have spoken. Do you
have proof that representations made by Mr. Roskelly can be
attributed to Mr. Soave having to do with the woods in the
backyards of the premium lots so to speak?
Mr. Dunlap:
Yeah, that's an excellent question. I don't have any proof. I'm not
aware of any direct conversations between the two of them. I
simply think it's an issue that would be good for him to address and
to address with the different homeowners. The only proof I'm
aware of is the proof that this Planning Commission has heard, and
that proof is that some of these homeowners were made promises
in the past. I'm aware that there have been projects where the two
of them have been involved. Maybe it's never been communicated,
but I think its the type of communication when you give people a
word as to what's going to happen to their home, to their greatest
investment, that they're gang to have, mostly likely, and it turns out
that that's not really the case, and then you have a friend or
someone whom you've done business with afterwards, and you
know that he's getting involved in that, that might be a type of thing
to consider. And that's the type of thing that could be explained to
some of the different homeowners as a means of possible
negotiating or looking at something that people could agree with.
19853
That's all I'm addressing there. But no, I'm not aware of any
Mr. Dunlap: Right. Well, you make an excellent point. And I'm not telling this
Planning Commission or am I telling my clients that nobody can
develop that - that has to stay as property that's there for you for
now until eternity. I mean I've had that conversation and I think
most of them understand that. Obviously, people would be
opposed to that type of development. However, there are some
certain expectations. I mean, when they bought the property, they
bought next to RUF, so there would be a clear expectation that (a)
there was an existing lot there that had not been split so that would
be a reasonable expectation. The second expectation would be
that if it was going to go beyond that, it wouldn't go in any bigger
parcels than the one-half acre parcels that had been meted out.
evidence of that and that's all that it comes from.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you saying that these lots that Mr. Soave wants to put in here,
these 70 foot lots, is not compatible to the lots that are in the area,
because most of the lots in the whole area are 70 foot lots.
Mr. Dunlap:
I don't know that its compatible. I guess it depends on what's
considered in the area. If you take the area that he took it from, it
was already zoned RIF.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that, but I'm saying what he's proposing to build are
70 foot lots. Let's take that another step. Let's assume at the time
that he built the Western Golf Subdivision he awned that parcel and
put 70 foot lots in there. It would be the same thing as what he's
asking to do today, except he didn't build it at the time he built the
complete area.
Mr. Dunlap:
The problem I have is that assuming that, my clients have already
been told beforehand that it was going to stay that way and that
they were going to be premium lots.
Mr. LaPine:
Let me tell you something. I've been on this Board for 15 years,
and I've heard that argument so many times. People come in and
say, 'The builder told me that would be vacant land from now to
doomsday." Well, you know, anybody that's got a parcel of land
that's worth money that can be developed, it going to be developed.
I mean that's just the nature of the beast, unfortunately. We hear
that time and time again. "I never would have bought that house if I
knew that lot was going to be developed." Or a guy buys a
subdivision and on the comer is a big parcel. Two years later a big
shopping center comes in. 'Well, they told me it was never going to
be developed."
Mr. Dunlap: Right. Well, you make an excellent point. And I'm not telling this
Planning Commission or am I telling my clients that nobody can
develop that - that has to stay as property that's there for you for
now until eternity. I mean I've had that conversation and I think
most of them understand that. Obviously, people would be
opposed to that type of development. However, there are some
certain expectations. I mean, when they bought the property, they
bought next to RUF, so there would be a clear expectation that (a)
there was an existing lot there that had not been split so that would
be a reasonable expectation. The second expectation would be
that if it was going to go beyond that, it wouldn't go in any bigger
parcels than the one-half acre parcels that had been meted out.
iPf, 1.+l
The third expectaton was created just a couple months ago with a
Master Plan that says that's low density residential proposed
property. When the Planning Commission put this together, they
could have also chosen and said, let's make it medium density
residential, which would be consistent with R1 or R-2 use but, and
I don't know the reasons that go beyond it, I just know about the
case law that talks about there's reasons why there is a Master
Plan. If somebody is going for rezoning, if I were to come in here
and ask you for rezoning, representing Mr. Soave, I'd say, "Well, it's
consistent with the Master Plan" or "It's not consistent." I would
know that would be another hurdle I'd have to overcome from this
position. And I'm saying that is a hurdle that he should have to
overcome. If he's going to ask for rezoning, he should ask for
rezoning at least that's consistent with the Master Plan and to not
go beyond that. So that's the expectation interest.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, you being an attorney, you know dog gone well that, number
one, nothing is forever. Number two, I have never heard of
someone buying a piece of property, whether its a home or office
building, and someone says, 'Well, he told me this" If it's not in
writing, nothing is forever. And just to darify with the audience, if
this proposal should go through, the petition is going to put in a
huge retenfion water basin for this property. If he does this, I know
it will take care of those 14 lots, and may even help you people.
But it's amazing to me that you've had these problems all these
years with water and nothing has ever been said by you to the City
until now when something wants to come in here. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you, sir. l appreciate your comments.
Mr. Dunlap:
Thank you.
Joan Ricotta, 14657 Cavell, which is one of the lots being sold, the back part of the
property. I just want to say that we've been living in this house for
about 23 years. When we moved into the area, Como Lake was
Como Lake. Well, the property was not the lake, but it closed over.
And Western Golf wasn't there either. So it was all rural in front of
us and beside us. Over the years, Como Lake was developed.
Western Golf was developed. I was opposed to it when it was first
being considered. I was unhappy that they were going to be
developing in font of me. There were going to be developing to the
side of me. But after the property was developed, in both
instances, I realized that it wasn't that big a deal. I mean, it didn't
really have a negative impact on the value of my house and how I
mised my children or anything like that. So, I'm just saying that the
people that are opposed to this now, probably think this is a big
deal, but once this is all said and done, its not going to be as bad
as they think.
19855
Russell Barnes,
14801 Cavell. I'm opposed to this project. On my slip of paper
where I got it says a 50 fool road back in there and a 60 foot lot.
Mr. McCann:
It's a 60 foot right -0f --way. The road will be 31 foot, paved, which is
a standard road. The right-of-way will not be as great for setback
purposes.
Mr. Barnes:
I'm still opposed to it.
James Ricotta,
14657 Cavell. I'm one of the lots that is proposed to be divided for
the new sub. I am for the rezoning. I feel
it will enhance the area.
People have been talking a lot tonight about water problems and
this and that. I mean when Roskelly put the subdivision in there, he
provided swales, storm drains, and numerous residents since have
modified the swales and built little walls and changed the dirt. I
mean some of the problems that they have with water I believe they
brought upon
themselves. The new proposed development here, I
feel, is going
to help the water situation, including my backyard. My
backyard, its nothing to be a foot under water in the Spring.
Number one, it's probably due to some of the subdivision behind
me, the Western Golf. Just because its behind me, they must have
mised that elevation a good six feet. I'm in a hole back there. I get
a lot of runoff. I feel that the new development will enhance the
area, will minimize ourwater problems and I'm forlhe rezoning.
Rick Anthony, 14833 Santa Anita. It's Lot 52. 1 do not back up to the forested lands
right now, but l am against this. Flat out, l just dont think we need
to fill every piece of property with houses. Thank you.
Michele Pineo,
14675 Cavell. I am one of the lot owners who will be selling their
property. I just wanted to point out a few things. I can appreciate
everyone's problems with saying that their backyards turn into
swamps and it causes a problem with their sprinkler system. But to
me, if your backyard is a swamp, why would you need a sprinkler
system? Secondly, people are talking about the trees that they
enjoy. Well, those are my trees. To say that if this housing
development goes, those trees are going to be knocked down.
Well, there's also nothing to say that I cant knock down those trees
myself, and those trees would be gone anyway. Those are my
trees. That's not public land. And I know that they paid a premium
for this prime property that was promised to them from their builder.
But they have to remember we did not promise them we would
never sell our land. We were never asked that. That's our
property. That's a broken promise by their builder, not by us. And I
realize that everybody is for open spaces. I'd like to point out the
fact that it was only a few years ago that the very property those
homes are on was an open space. If the people before us had not
I
sold their property and sold those open spaces, their homes would
not exist today.
Mr. Alanskas:
That's a good point.
Ms. Pineo:
And I would also like to point out that they said they like open
spaces. Well, our property will be reduced to a little bit over half an
acre, and that's still an open space. That's still larger than any of
those properties, so those people feel free to enjoy my open space
of a half acre. I'd also like to point out the fad that Leo has already
built a very similar housing development at the lop of Five Mile,
which to me, this would be the exact same mirror image. Any
problems they would have had, we would have had and nobody is
here complaining about that. Thank you.
David Baedin,
14790 Santa Anita. That would be Lot 61 if that will help you find me
on the map there. If it's appropriate at this time, I'd like to submit a
letter for the record. Is that okay?
Mr. McCann:
That's fine.
Mr. Baedin:
I dont expect you to read it at this point.
Mr. McCann:
It's a letter?
Mr. Baedin:
It's a letter directed to all of you. I've got nine copies. I hope that's
enough. I'd like to make a couple points. I'd like to clarify
something first of all. Would I love to see nothing happen to the
property? Of course. But realistically, I think most of us realize that
eventually something will happen to the property. We'd like the
Commission and all the adjacent homeowners and the developer to
listen to what we have to say so if they do develop the property,
they lake our concerns into consideration. I also have a great deal
of water that stands on my property. It's been approved by the
City, but I tell you after it reins for three or four days, at the rear of
my properly you cant even walk on it without sinking into the mud.
So we're concemed that any adjacent development will shed water
onto our properly and make our situation even worse.
Mr. McCann:
Two things. I think most people's property in Livonia is pretty wet
after three or four days of rain. But I believe this would have to
quality under the new Wayne County standards. Is that correct,
Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. The standards that you're refening to are for stormwaler
detention. All new developments have to meet certain standards.
19857
Mr. McCann: That means they have to maintain all their water up to, is it the 100
year...?
Mr. Taormina: Because of the land area involved here, I think it would kick it into
the 100 year storm requirements.
Mr. McCann: So basically what they're saying is that they have to maintain ct
their water. They would no longer be able to let water con onto your
property. They would have to have the 100 year storm and be able
to maintain that on their own properly or discharge it into the sewer
system without it going onto your land. Not that it's a controlling
issue, but should the development go in, they would have to correct
the problem if any of their water runs onto the neighboring
properties.
Mr. Baedin: Very good. Those are many of the things that I'm concerned about
Mr. McCann: I'm just saying that it's one issue that I can deal with.
Mr. Baedin: If I can direct you to the map . . the 'T' turnaround that was
referred to ... some gentleman had made a comment about a fire
truck. I'm also concerned about where the snowplows are going to
put the snow. And that turnaround, I would imagine people are
going to back into that 'T," and their headlights are going to be
facing right on the back of my house. That's a concern of mine,
too. There will be sweeping headlights, you know, who knows how
many times a day. I guess that's all I have to say. I'd just like to
say again that I think people are realistic that eventually this land
will probably get developed. We'd just like some dialogue so
people will listen to us. Somehow I hink we've come across that
we want absolutely nothing to happen to the property. Sure, we 'd
love to see nothing happen, but realistically something probably will
happen. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann: That's reasonable. Thankyou.
Scott Pineo, 14675 Cavell, which is M2A. I'd just like to reiterate a couple points. I
know theyve already kind of been said, but I think there are some
numbers against the people who actually own the property, like
myself. As far as the trees and the open space and things like that
are concemed, I guess I have to reiterate that if you look out your
backyard and you don't actually own the property, I'm not sure you
really have a right to say what should be back there. I understand
that you can't put a big Brous tent up or whatever, but if we wanted
to cut those trees down and I wanted to con my driveway all the
way out there, I imagine I could do something similar to that. But
anyways, I guess my point is that I understand those people want
to have the open space, they want to have the woods there.
I
Unfortunately, they can't make that call. It feels very much like
everybody in this room is trying to be a parent to a child and tell us
what we can and cannot do, and that's a little bit worrisome. As far
as the water issue, I think like Jim had mentioned before, that issue
has probably existed for quite some time and I think we all kind of
share that water issue together. I would imagine I would like to
believe that as a new development comes in, as technology gets
better, we'll be better able to handle that water. I've seen the plans
that have the swales and the water retention devices and that to me
seems like that's a feasible plan. And finally to address the T for
emergency vehicles, I mean I've been on this street for over six
years and it seems like there haven't been all that many emergency
vehicles that have cruised by constantly, so worry about that, I think
that's a minor issue. I guess that's all I have to say about that.
Thanks.
Dennis Orel, 14751 Cavell. I'm speaking for Cathenne Orel at 14751 Cavell, who's
had property there. I'm for the proposal. Since 1944, she once had
five to six acres. Several of these people who are complaining
about the development have bought land from her, which was
subdivided in the first place. Secondly, I'm hearing tonight, I'm kind
of amazed, this FOSIL organization and these people concemed
with open land. Why didn't they ask when they bought the property
from the homeowners, which is pnvale property, if they planned to
sell or not sell? Why did they listen to a builder or make an
assumption that we don't have the right to make our own
decisions? My concern is that these people, I'm listening tonight,
and they seem to ... they didn't ask, they didn't inquire .. if
there are water problems on their property, perhaps it was their
developer who sold them their properties which caused the problem
which they should have addressed when their homes were built
and they moved into them. Not now. This builder is proposing
solutions and has concern for the water situations and a better
environment. That's all I have to say.
Tamara Nabozny, 14656 Santa Anita, Lot 67. I'm here just to say that I oppose this
development. As far as the water, everyone's been talking about
the water situation and why haven't we done anything about it. I
have called the City. They did come out. They pretty much have
said there's not really much you can do. It must be your neighbor
that has something blocking. But its not just me that has flooding.
It's every single person that's been here that has flooding, so it
doesn't seem to me that its just one neighbor. And I'm afraid that if
more houses go in, it's just going to add to the problem.
George Atsalis, 14715 Cavell. I'm br the project. My parents bought the home back
in 1960. Both my parents are deceased now. As kids we enjoyed
R. A lot of acreage, a lot of forestry, a good time riding the bikes
19859
and having a good time. He sold like four acres. We have two
acres now, so we're selling a full acre because our lot goes like a
big L shape. So we wanted to sell the one acre for development.
You know, I respect these people. I appreciate their concern about
the beauty and the forest and having the kids play there. On tie
other hand, my parents did purchase it intending to sell it down the
road sometime. And they were trying to sell it for a few years as it
was. You know, maintenance, upkeep, liability. You know
situations. You know all are big issues in this day and age. A lot of
people who have their kids ride their bikes and go through the
wooded area ... it's probably my property or my brother and sisters
property. So we would like to sell it. If we dont, its a hard
geometric design to sell with the home because its loo big for the
average person to purchase because it's almost two acres. And
our acres go behind our neighbor's lot. So, we're all for it.
John Atsalis, 14715 Cavell. This was my parent's property. That was my brother,
George, who just spoke. I should say I'm in total support of the
rezoning of the property for a new residential community. I'm totally
in support of what many of my peers mentioned about it being
private property, and we do have the right to sell it. One of the
things my father mentioned to me way back when -- he passed
away four years ago at 78 — and as my brother stated, he bought
the property in 1960 and built the house. He came from Greece as
a young child, fought in Word War II and made a good life for
himself here. One of his big dreams to me when he was talking
was ... his dream was that someday he could sell that property
and have others partake in a good life in the City of Livonia with the
good school system, the good public services. And that was his
dream, with his neighbor Cathy Orel, whose son Dennis spoke, was
one day to sell that so others could build there and enjoy it as we
have. So that's all I have to say. I hope the Council will lake a hard
look at this and realize that it is a good tax base for the City of
Livonia and for residents that wish to come to Livonia. Thank you.
Tim Bailey, 9826 Cranston. I, loo, am opposed to this project, and I'd just like to go
on record saying that. The main reason is that it goes against the
Master Plan. I think a little time and money went into designing this
City, obviously, from years past and I just wish we would respect
that especially in this day and age when so much of Livonia is
already developed. We really need to take our time and look hard
at future developments. I think some of the arguments that you
used towards the Schoolcmtt project could be used right here as far
as traffic congestion and so forth. We certainly wouldn't want a
Seven Mile and Haggerty situation down in this area. Thank you
for your lime.
IP1:iYr1
Mark Neuenschwander, 27675 Western Golf. I support the petition. I think it's a
good business plan to further develop eastern Livonia. If there's
going to be new $275,000 homes right down the street from me, I'm
allforthat. Thankyou.
Scott Fosgard,
14724 Santa Anita, Lot 64. I'm also opposed for all the reasons that
have been stated before, and we hope you give us careful
consideration. Thanks.
Mr. McCann:
I'm going to dose the public hearing seeing no one else wishing to
speak. The petitioner has the opportunity to respond. Mr. Soave,
do you have a response thalyou'd like logive us?
Mr. Soave:
Okay. Thank you very much. I want to thank you for putting up
with this. This is a rezoning for R2. Most of the adjacent area is
zoned R7 and R-2. We didn't come asking for R-1. We asked for
R-2, the same as the adjoining properties. Also, on the first piece
of property on the southerly end, we closed on that property. That
properly is ours. The other pieces are under contract. Also, as far
as the 'T' turnaround, I can give you a good example on Elmira
Court, which is on Levan and Plymouth. We're abutting R1 to R-1.
Nobody told us to plant 20 fool trees over there. By talking to the
neighbors, if everything was approved, the bonds were posted, the
thing was done. We went and talked to neighbors. Do you want 20
fool trees? We put them up. Also, as far as the storm, on
Kenwood No. 2 the storm capacity at the end of that subdivision
was 50%. As you know, first of all we have to go to Wayne County
and get the detention bond verified and okayed by Wayne County.
Also, once this thing is okayed, for every plot plan that is submitted
to the City, at the end we have a grading certificate or a grading
plan. That plan has to be checked by the City. Under no
circumstances are we allowed to discharge one drop of water on
the adjoining property. That's never happened. The City
engineering is very good at this. We went in sometimes three and
four times and we graded these lots. And I want to thank you for
putting up with this again.
Mr. La Pine:
One question, Mr. Soave. If this is approved, will you be able to
help alleviate some of the water problems on these other
properties?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir. We've done that with Kenwood Court. This was like five
or six years ago. The street runoff came from the vacant property
to Norfolk. Every time it rained, it would go into the street. Once
we put our storm system in, that property has always been dry and
you can go by there and talk to the neighbors.
Mr. LaPine:
You think that same thing could happen here?
19861
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir. We, again, under no circumstance, the property that we
develop has to contain its own water. We cannot put one drop of
water on the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Soave, it seems like some of the concems here tonight was the
density that your particular development is going to bring about.
Have you considered going to a higher grade other than R-2? R3,
R4, R-5? Or building them all in RUF? Nobody certainly could
object to that?
Mr. Soave:
Mr. Pieroecchi, on an RUF zoning, when you're dealing with 300
feet of property, there is no way you can have RUF.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Noway, huh?
Mr. Soave:
Really. Those lots would be like 300' by 120' and it just wouldn't
work. Some of those lots that you have on your plan, are 80 foot
wide, and that's equivalent to R-3, which is better than Western
Golf, which is R-2. Also, as you know, to go back to Western Golf,
if they were promised a premium lot, I dont think, you know, no
developer would base his project on somebody else's property. I
don't think that would happen. At least I don't know a developer
like that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Have you mel with some of the people on Santa Anda and Western
Golf and told them what you're going to do and asked them if they
would be more agreeable to a higher grade, let's say an R-4 or R-5,
that's 100' wide?
Mr. Soave:
They'd be 100'x 120'.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It's 100'x 150'.
Mr. Soave:
R-5would 150'. It wouldn't work.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are you telling me, sir, that the only practical way of breaking up
that properly is R-2?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir. R-2 or R3 or R-1. I think the good attorney says I didn't
ask for R-1, but I would take R-1 over R-2 any time.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, yeah. You'd build an extra house.
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Thank you.
19862
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: Looking at the plan, I'm going to give an approving resolution. The
Commission never, never gives what is tensed spot zoning. If this
land was that, but its surrounded entirely by R1 and R-2, so it's
really in compliance. On that I'll give an approving resolution.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, ilwas
#11-144-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-10-01-14, submitted by Leo Soave Building Company
requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Cavell
Avenue between Five Mile Road and Western Golf Drive in the
Northeast % of Section 24 from RUF to R-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-10-01-14 be approved forthe following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes
which are consistent with the immediately adjacent lots in the
subdivision to the west and south;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and inning districts in the
area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single
family residential development similar in density to what is
existing in the neighboring area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation on the subject property of
low density residential land uses; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning represents an extension
of an existing zoning district occurring on adjacent property to
the west and south.
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. McCann: Is there any discussion? Will the Secretary please call the roll?
19863
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Shane, La Pine, Walsh, Pieroecchi
NAYES: McCann
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM#3 PETITION 200240-0145 TACS
Mr. Pieroecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2002-
10-01-15, submitted by Toni Aloe and Charles Sergison, on behalf
of TACS, L.L.C., requesting to rezone property at 14881 and 14891
Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast''/.of
Section 21 from R-2 to OS.
Mr. Taormina presented
a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding
area.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, before you shut that off, I'd like something clarified. 3A is the
parcel that is just north of that property. That belongs to Time
Warner, right?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't have the map descriptions that you're looking at, but if you're
referring to the southerly most properly that is zoned residential on
this map, that is the site owned by Time Warner. That is cored.
Mr. La Pine:
So we have four lots north of that before we hit that OS property
that's still zoned R-2. Is that right?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are you saying that Lot 3 is Time Warner also? I thought only Lots
1 and 2.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure what lot number it is, but it's ...
Mr. Nowak:
Lot 3A is the lot that is currently under pefition for rezoning to a
parking classification.
U.91,11A
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thats Time Warner.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. So Time Warner has Lots 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Nowak:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated October 31, 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. The legal description of the combined parcel to be rezoned
contains an error. The corrected line should read as follows
'thereof measuring 51.97 feet on the North line and 52.97 feet on.'
Then= does not appear to be any additional right-of-way required at
this time. This project will be subject to the Wayne County Storm
Water Management Ordinance, and any drive approaches to
Farmington Road will require Wayne County approval. 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 correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Carl Creighton, Attorney, 33300 Five Mile Road, Suite 210, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
I'm appearing on behalf of TACS, LLC and its principles, Ms. Toni
Aloe and Charles Sergison, who are here. Also present this
evening is the architect for this project, Mr. Frank DeMattia, to
answer any technical questions you may have. Ms. Aloe and Mr.
Sergison are both current and long-time residents of the City of
Livonia. They are very active in the community. Ms. Aloe and Mr.
Sergison are also principles of a business known as First
Centennial Title Agency, Inc. That is a business that is currently,
and for the past 17 years, located at 14600 Farmington Road,
diagonally across the street from the property to be rezoned. The
purpose of the rezoning is to construct two first class professional
office buildings, one to house their own business that being the
front building; and a second for lease to professionals and allied or
related fields such as mortgage companies, attorneys or similar
professionals. Ms. Aloe's and Mr. Sergison's business has been at
that location since 1985. Its prospered; its grown; it's expanded.
Unfortunately, its done so on a somewhat haphazard basis within
that building at 14600 Farmington Road. They find themselves
cramped, disorganized and less than efficient due to the
juxtaposition of the various spaces that they've acquired during the
course of that 17 years. They would obviously like to stay in the
immediate vicinity in a space specifically designed for them. We've
provided a rendering tonight. This is a rendering of the proposed
buildings. This is the proposed floor plan that has been designed to
accommodate their business. We also obviously have the site
plan, a copy of which you've been provided with, as well as some
proposed elevations of other sides of the building. There is
available for you, should you choose, a proposed landscaping plan.
Ms. Aloe and Mr. Sergison have acquired those parcels to allow
them to fulfill their vision. They are currently occupied by two
vacant homes. Those homes are residential dwellings. They've
become functionally obsolescent. They are nearing the end of the
useful economic life, and they are to be leveled and replaced. We
sincerely believe the demolition of those less desirable buildings
and their replacement with a first class office professional complex
will enhance the area and the City as a whole. The parcels have
been consistently shown on the Master Plan of the City as OS. The
parcels are contiguous to an OS parcel at this point in time. They
are located in an area that is dominated by other OS development
and public lands that are consistent with the proposed uses. The
time has come to rezone these parcels and allow them to be
developed to their highest and best use, which is OS. Thank you
for your time. We are available for any questions that you may
have.
Mr.
McCann:
Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr.
Alanskas:
The property where they are right now . . . do they own that
property or are they leasing it?
Mr.
Creighton:
They are leasing.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr.
La Pine:
Are these two buildings going to face Farmington Road or are they
going to face a road coming in?
Mr.
Creighton:
The juxtaposition of the buildings is that they would be facing the
entrance road. This would be the entrance road coming in off of
Farmington Road, so they would be ....
Mr.
La Pine:
Sothalside oflhe building actuallyfaces Farmington Road there?
Mr.
Creighton:
Thais correct. Thalside elevation.
Mr.
La Pine:
And the buildings then would be facing north, basically.
IP1dY
Mr. Creighton: That is correct. But the east elevation, the elevation that's facing
the road, is actuallyfrontage elevation for all intents and purposes.
Mr. La Pine:
Theyenteroff the road going in.
Mr. Creighton:
Right. The entrance way is shown, perhaps you can't see it as well
from there as I can from here.
Mr. La Pine:
One more question to Mark. The property behind this, is that
residential to the west of there? That's where the senior citizen
housing is. Will that require a wall across there?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. The rezoning requires a screen wall between any office and
residential regardless of whether it's R-9 or R-1.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
If I may, I noficed that there was some interest expressed by Mr.
Lee, who owns some of the adjacent parcels, that they might be
subject to a rezoning request in the future. I'm curious if the
petitioners know what the status is of those negofiations.
Mr. Creighton:
The petitioners would have no idea what Mr. Lee has in mind for
the properfies.
Mr. Walsh:
The reason for my request ... I think what you're asking for is wise.
What I'm struggling with is, in a perfect world, perhaps all those
homes that are along there would be all rezoned at the same time,
and we might see some more methodical planning. That's the only
purpose of my quesfion.
Mr. Creighton:
And I guess I would point out that coming from the cemetery, there
is a Mr. Phipps who owns a rather large L-shaped parcel. There is
another home juxtaposed between Mr. Phipps and the two
properties owned by the petitioner. Then there's a roadway and
then there are five individual parcels, one or more of them are
under current ownership, but there's at lead three owners between
there and the Time Warner building. In a perfect word, yes, you're
right, but in the real world, the odds of getting six or seven people
to all row in the same direction on this at the same fime are
probably not too great.
Mr. McCann:
Have you talked to the people at Lutheran Village at all? My
concern is about the entrance onto Farmington Road as opposed to
off of Lutheran Lane.
Mr. Creighton:
We have attempted to talk with individuals at Lutheran Village. All
inquiries were referred to their architect. Mr. DeMattia met with the
19867
architect very briefly and was able to give him a copy of our site
plan and some of the information. He took and fled under
advisement, I guess, would be the best description of what
happened. They were not overly concerned. It is my
understanding that, obviously, the Lutheran Home has a lot of land
yet to be formally developed. Our development will be
complementary to and may end up assisting them in the long con
between the retention pond and the possibility of a sewer lie in that
may be made available to them. So don't think there will be any
ground swell of opposition from them. Mr. Phipps has indicated to
the petitioners that he is supportive of and is not in opposition in
any way to the development.
Mr. McCann:
The property to the direct north of here is owned by who?
Mr. Creighton:
I'm not sure of the individual's name.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Lee?
Mr. Creighton:
Oh, I'm sorry. The name is on the board. No, I'm sorry. I don't
have a name ....
Mr. McCann:
We have a Mr. Mathewson. You're in the audience. All right.
Obviously there has not been a great deal of discussion of
acquiring that property between your dients and Mr. Mathewson?
Mr. Creighton:
That's correct.
Mr. McCann:
One of my concerns is that the development of this property in this
manner will dictate the rest of the development along Farmington
Road, and that we are going to have long narrow buildings
perpendicular to Farmington Road. I'm not sure that will be the
most pleasing effect we can have. Obviously, the width of your
property isn't sufficient to have something facing Farmington Road.
Has there been no consideration to trying to buy additional property
and having the buildings more in a uniform park -like setting?
Mr. Creighton:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just the concern that I have is, you know, when Time Warner came
before us, we had changed one part of the rezoning to P for parking
so that we could not have any more OS going north to Five Mile. I
thought, I hoped, that we could possibly keep this all residential, but
if we, in my mnd, approve an OS here, it's going to change the
entire complex of Farmington Road to office buildings. Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Chairman, it's my feeling that this area is currently being
subjected to piecemeal rezoning. Time Warner has changed the
zoning on Lots 1 through 3, and it is my understanding that
Beaumont Hospital is negotiating for Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, with the
intention of requesting OS zoning. This scenario indicates that a
comprehensive plan should be developed for this strip of land. I'd
like to suggest that we table this subject for further discussion
particularly with respect to the possibility of the adjacent properties
also being considered for rezoning to the OS classification so as to
provide for a more comprehensive development.
Mr. McCann: That's why I said we need to go to the audience first
Mr. Pieroecchi: I didn't make a motion. Ijust suggested it.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Vincent Lee, 6062 Dunmore, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48033. 1 own the property
at 14815 Farmington Road and the lot next door, so I own two of
the properties just north of the Time Warner parcel. I've owned the
properly and paid taxes on it for about 30 years. In fad, I awned
half of the property that's under proposal to be developed tonight. I
wanted to put a real estate broker office in there about 1970. Al the
time, it was zoned for future land use as OS with a proposal for
general medical to the best of my recollection. I have had a
purchase agreement on my property, which I cant divulge who the
purchaser is, but it was a branch of the United Staled government
interested in building an office building on two Ids. I have a
proposal now and I have my real estate broker here wanting to
speak. I'm for the existing proposal, the office building as it has
been explained tonight. It seems to me a logical use. It seems to
me that when you're looking at residential in this area and the
builder, who was here earlier, had a purchase agreement on my
site. He said the difficulty is with the road split there. You don't
have enough land to make it economically feasible to put condos in.
This was when he withdrew his purchase agreement that he had
with me. He couldn't assemble enough roads, and he was
handicapped by the land. It seemed to me that office would be
quality; it would be beautiful, would not disrupt anything. I think that
Time Warner wants office. I want an office and I'll let the people
close to me speak for bemselves. But it seems to me to be a
logical, prudent development. I'll be happy to answer any
questions anybody might have.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Lee, you own 3A and 4A. You indicated to us that you had a
prospective buyer for that lot to put in a hospital or a branch. Is that
correct?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
I
Mr. LaPine:
Then you indicated to us that they were also interested in ... you
got 4A, 5A. 6A and 7A was owned by some real estate individual
and the hospital was looking at buying that too. So they would
have all four lots. We'd have one building on four lots. Is that
correct?
Mr. Lee:
Yes, sir. And they're here ready to speak behind me to address
your concems and your questions.
Mr. LaPine:
All right. I just want to make sure I understand. Thank you.
Mr. Lee:
Okay. Thank you for your time.
Jim Bamess,
Contracting Resources. I'm the developer/builder that's trying to
assemble the pieces directly south of the ....
Mr. McCann:
Can we have a business address, sir?
Mr. Barness:
Yes. 403 East Grand River, Suite C, Brighton Michigan. I won't
confine or deny the user, but we do have a user that is in need of
medical office space in the general vicinity of the Livonia City Hall
here. And in our land search, we've located the parcels directly
south of the one in question for the rezoning today. We agree that
the right way to do it is to assemble all three owners, all four pieces.
We've actually met with Mark Taormina maybe three/four weeks
ago and presented a site plan. We've modified it and we're
basically depending on todays rezoning. The real estate broker is
here today who is trying to assemble the three pieces to get them
under contract, but the first portion of the package is to make sure
that the rezoning for this piece was assembled. So it's kind of the
domino effect of what comes first and what comes second. But
there's definitely interest for assembling a medical office use
directly south of the one in question. All four pieces, three different
owners, but there is some assemblage and obviously the rezoning
process that would have to occur.
Mr. Alanskas:
When you say office building, what size are you referring to?
Mr. Barness:
We've planned an office building two stories, 28,000 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. Bamess:
We'd have approximately 400 cars. I don't remember the exact
number, but we have it planned and ready to submit.
Mr. LaPine:
One of my problems is that if we go ahead and rezone this, say to
OS, and then your deal falls through and the zoning is there, then I
19870
might end up with four buildings in here instead of one. I want to be
assured before I would ever go along with the rezoning here, that I
have something in my hand that that's what those four lots are
going to be used for- one building.
Mr. McCann: Do you have an option on those three?
Mr. Barness: No. The first step is to see if the rezoning was to take place today.
One of the other owners of the three properties is here as well, in
addition to Vincent Lee.
Mr. McCann: So you land of got the chicken and the egg.
Mr. Barness: Yeah, its a chicken and the egg. We'll go after and get the project
assembled, but again, the first step is to get rezoning on that first
piece. Even if it's under contract, there's no guarantee that our
user is going to officially go under contract either. But it's our
feeling that it is the right use along Farmington Road. And back to
your question about the frontage, the way we've got it assembled is
with all four pieces assembled, we're able to do a first class building
that is parallel to Farmington Road, a very nice first dass
development. So if we ever gel to that point, we'd be happy to
share our information with you.
Mr. McCann: Are there other people in the audience wishing to speak?
Scott McGinnis, Superior Properties Group. My home address here in Livonia is
14016 Ellen. I was entrusted by Contracting Resources to do a
land search and assemblage for a medical group, which I'm not
willing to confirm or deny who that is. I've heard that name
bantered about. That was after a purchase agreement had been in
place with Mr. Lee for a government agency. I can and will disclose
to you who that was. That was the General Services
Administration, the Society Security Department desiring an 8,000
square foot free-standing unit unto themselves. Unfortunately,
budget constraints have put them in a position where they are
going to put that decision oft at this point and time. When we had
the medical user come to light in the need of a 28,000 square foot
facility, I thought that this would be a natural. Living in the
community and bicycling and walking with the kids, I live right
behind the project, behind Hull Elementary School. I thought this
was a natural in cleaning up that site. These homes that are there
are indeed functionally obsolete, and I think it would be a prudent
development for the City of Livonia to give consideration to
rezoning for office. Exploring all opportunities as a real estate
broker for Mr. Lee, I had multiple meetings with some local
developers, which you're all aware of. The density required in
order to gel the financial return that the sellers are asking or
19871
anywhere near on those lands would require then to have under
your multiple density in excess of 10 units per acre. That said the
demand in the marketplace for condos is not from the empty
nesters from what we can see and the developers I've spoken with.
They want single story, separate entrance, etc. The only way that
they could financially validate getting a multiple use in there would
be to have stacked units, and the market just doesn't seem to have
a demand for that.
Mr. McCann:
The problem with that is that it's not our concern what they want for
the property. It's what the proper zoning should be and that's the
issue before us.
Mr. McGinnis:
That I understand. Just a little additional insight for you, Mr.
McCann.
Mr. McCann:
I know the insight. I hear it every night up here.
Mr. McGinnis:
I'm sure you do. Thank you.
Lyman Mathewson, 14905 Farmington Road. Good evening. I purchased my
home in 1976 and I've enjoyed the many years there with all the
trees and the wooded area in the back. And I would like to
continue to enjoy this without two offices complete with over 90
parking spaces right next door to me. I still work here in Livonia
and I would like to return from work to a residential environment,
not to a construction upheaval, office buildings, parking spaces,
leveling all the wooded area. It would not be enjoyable for me to sit
on my patio to see this, not to mention the noise and exhaust fumes
from the traffic. There is no practical reason for rezoning any of the
lots from the Time Warner parking lot to the cemetery to office or
business. Just a short drive down Farmington Road will reveal
many places already zoned for business. There's a place for lease
just next door to the school building. That's on the west side. Also,
the fire and police departments, just across the street, should not
have to contend with more traffic caused by office buildings with
over 90 parking spaces. Please consider keeping the area on the
west side of Farmington Road, between the Time Warner parking
lot to the cemetery, residential. Thank you.
Diane Smith: I represent the property at 14821 Farmington Road. This would be
just north of the two properties that Mr. Lee owns, two lots south of
the OS driveway. I guess over time sometimes you have to go with
changes that maybe you hadn't planned on, but considering the
area over there, most of the houses are vacant now. It's becoming
apparent that they are vacant. I think the plans that have been
presented tonight, a medical building, would be a worthwhile cause,
and in that respect, I would not be opposed to the rezoning.
19872
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else wishing to speak? I'll close the public
hearing. Does the petitioner have any further comments?
Mr. Creighton:
No comments. I am available for questions.
Mr. LaPine:
In my mind, if I can buy this rezoning to OS. I liked the proposal
that the gentleman had with just one building on those four lots.
But I have a problem with your project. If you could get Mr. Phipps
to combine his property with yours, and have one building on that
parcel, and one building on these parcels, it would probably give
me a better reason to go for an OS zoning. I cant go along with
two buildings there, and then Mr. Phipps develops his property.
Maybe he wants to put up two buildings. And his parcels don't go
and I might get four buildings there. Otherwise, I'd rather leave it to
the R2 classification. Have you made any attempts to talk to Mr.
Phipps about combining his with yours?
Mr. Creighton:
Yes, I don't believe Mr. Phipps is interested in development at this
point, but he is in the future. The only problem with your proposal,
Mr. LaPine, would be that we would make an island of Mr.
Mathewson's property because he is completely encircled and
horseshoed by our property and Mr. Phipps', so he'd have a wall
built around him.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, what is the current siluabon with regard to the Future
Land Use Plan? I think that was updated and went to the Council
for this area.
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, the change that the Planning Commission had requested
for the Future Land Use Plan did not involve these properfies since
they were already shown on the Master Plan as being medium
density residential. The change was made to the group of parcels
to the south of Luther Lane including the aforementioned parcels
owned by Mr. Lee and the other two to the north of that.
Mr. McCann:
So the Future Land Use Plan still calls for residential in this area?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. McCann:
And under the new statute with requirements to change the Future
Land Use Plan to conform with the zoning change, do we need to
do anything at this point?
Mr. Taormina:
No. Although that's a statutory requirement for townships, it is not
the same for cities and villages. So, no, there is no legal obligaton
for us to amend the Master Plan prior to any change of zoning that
might be inconsistent.
19873
Mr. McCann: That was one of our original concerns. Thank you, Mr. Taormina
Mr. Shane: Being that as it may, it seems to me that we need to make up our
minds whether it's going to be residential or office before we get too
far down the road. You know what I'm saying? Because we
recently reaffirmed the medium density residential to the north and
we established it to the south. Now all of sudden we have some
zoning petitions that could alter that. Some of the things I've heard,
I like. That is the proposal to use four lots. The ones I don't like is
where you have two lots, as Mr. LaPine said, sort of by themselves.
I think we need to make up our minds. It is residential or it is
office? If it's office, then we can make a decision accordingly.
Mr. McCann: I guess I would have to go again to the City Council and whether or
not they are in the process of making a decision whether they are
going to change the Future Land Use Plan of the southern
properties. If they say, no, that the southern property Future Land
Use Plan should be OS, then it's logical to carry it forward possibly
to the north. If they're going to say, no, we believe that the Future
Land Use Plan for the southern properly should be residential, it
wouldn't make sense to change the north to OS. We don't know
when the Council is going to take this issue up, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
A dale has not been established for them to revisit this issue. They
did place the discussion of the item in Committee where they had
one meeting. They did not resolve to take action or to acknowledge
the change to the Future Land Use Plan as was recommended by
the Planning Commission. So that item is still in Committee and
has not been refered out or discussed any further at this point in
time.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have two questions for the gentleman. Did you say that your
client has already purchased the property?
Mr. Creighton:
That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
And number two, how long do they have on the lease where they
are now across the street?
Mr. Creighton:
Approximately one year.
Mr. Alanskas:
So if we table this for different reasons, that would be no problem?
Mr. Creighton:
Yes, it would.
Mr. Alanskas:
It would be a problem?
19874
Mr. Creighton:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
You said you've already purchased the property?
Mr. Creighton:
That is correct, and we have one year lett to go on the lease. We
would like to go forward and ...
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm tallang about a few weeks down the road, not a long period of
time, fortabling.
Mr. Creighton:
With all due respect, there's only one petition involving one parcel.
I have no control over what happens on this parcel. I have no
control over what happens on Mr. Lee's.
Mr. Alanskas:
But in our minds, we are thinking what should we do? Should we
make this residential or should we make it OS. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Any other questions? A motion is in order.
Mr. Walsh:
I'm going to offer a tabling resolution for further discussion,
particularly with respect to the possibility of adjacent properties also
being considered for rezoning to the OS dassifcation so that we
can look at this in a more comprehensive manner.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'll support that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chair, if I may speak to the motion?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Creighton, my first question was ...
Mr. McCann:
There is no discussion on a tabling motion.
Mr. Walsh:
You're right.
Mr. McCann:
The only thing we can do is pick a dale. I was going to suggest to
try and look at it if their concern is time. And I understand that if
you're a businessman and you've got to build a building and go
through all City processes and come back with a site plan, but
that's not what we had before us tonight. Possibly we could look at
the regular meeting in December 17.
Mr. La Pine:
How about January 7? We only have two meetings in December.
19875
Mr. McCann: No. Mark is saying no. We only have the one regular meeting in
December. I'd like to see what we can find out and see if we can
get some indication from the Council where theyre going with the
Future Land Use Plan. Is the date of December 17 all right with the
maker of the motion?
Mr. Walsh:
December 17 is fine.
On a motion by
Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-145-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-10-01-15, submitted by Toni Aloe and Charles Sergison, on
behalf of TACS, L.L.C., requesting to rezone property at 14881 and
14891 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington
Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast
%of Section 21 from R2 to OS, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that Petition 2002-10-01-15 be tabled until the
Regular Meeting of December 17, 2002.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canted and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. McCann, before we leave this item, if I could just suggest
something to all those in the audience, 0 might be helpful. I think
you can gather that we're struggling with this. I'm not looking for a
perfect world but something close to it. If there is some more
cooperation amongst yourselves, some indication of what might
happen there should we approve this rezoning, it would be helpful.
That's my final comment.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Also on that same subject, Mr. McCann, if you or maybe Mark
could meet with whoever is the head of the Committee that this is
in, and tell them what we have proposed and what we're thinking
about, maybe you could gel some consensus from the Council as
to what way their heading.
Mr. McCann:
This might be something to bring before the Mayor and the
President of the Council or the Director. I'll see what we can do.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
19876
ITEM #4 PETITION 2002-09-0247 CHINA KITCHEN
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
09-02-17, submitted by Wo Kit Cheng, on behalf of China Kitchen,
requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant
at 37116 Six Mile Road located on the north side of Six Mile Road
between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest
%of Section 8.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 27, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to
the proposal as submitted. There is no additional right-of-way
required at this site. The approximate legal description for the
space occupied by the restaurant is as follows We trust that this
will provide you with the information requested." The Iefler is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second Iefler
is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 14, 2002,
which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a fullservice
restaurant located on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third Iefler 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
operate a full service restaurant located at 37116 Six 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 31, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of October 7, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) In general the parking lot
needs maintenance, resealing and double striping. (2) The
northwest parking area needs repair or repaving. (3) The gas
piping and doors on the north and east elevations need repainting.
(4) Trash was sitting outside the doors on the east elevation at the
site inspection. (5) There is no apparent provision for trash and
grease removaUstorage at the restaurant. This should be clarified.
(6) Landscaping shrubs are missing at the north building — west
elevation. (7) There are incorrect details (21A-1) and notes sheetA-
19877
1. Note 1 refers to the Midland City Building Code and other notes
have references to incorrect codes and standards. These should
all be corrected prior to any further submission. (8) The Floor plan
as drawn will not meet existing requirements of the Michigan
Building Code. This space as drawn requires two exits and exit
access may not go through the kitchen. Although this is generally
not a Commission review, it is serious enough to advise the
Petitioners now. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the peUSoner here this evening?
Z. Y. Liu, 4743 Parkside Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Wo Kit Cheng, 583 Sorel Drive, Canton, Michigan 48188.
Mr. Liu:
Mr. Cheng, the restaurant owner, asked me to speak for him
because of language. Basically, he's trying to lease a space of
about 1,625 square feet in an existing strip shopping center and
establish what I would call a fast food restaurant, mainly for carry
out and have a few tables for people if they like to eat in the
restaurant. So we are very happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Alanskas:
Does Mr. Cheng have other restaurants or is this a first time for
him?
Mr. Liu:
He does have other restaurants, yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many?
Mr. Liu:
Okay, this will be the second one. In fact, he is under construction
also in this city at Eight Mile and Farmington Road.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are you also going to have in your restaurant, besides carry out, a
menu where you can sit down and have a dinner in the evening?
Mr. Liu:
No, just like fast food, not menu.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you'll have no waitresses there to take care of customers? It
will be carry out only?
Mr. Liu:
That is correct. But we have tables just like MacDonald's. We will
have people there deaning. The utensils will be one time use.
Mr. La Pine:
Exactly where is the restaurant at Eight Mile and Farrminglon
because I live in that area? I don't know where its at.
Mr. Liu:
Northridge Commons.
Mr. LaPine:
What it is near? Blockbuster?
David Field:
I'm with Ross Financial, 31300 Northwestern Highway, Suite B,
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. We're the owners of both
Northridge and Laurel Commons.
Mr. LaPine:
Where is the restaurant?
Mr. Field
It would be up in the row there with the rest of the fast food
restaurants.
Mr. LaPine:
How long has it been there?
Mr. Field
They are under construction now. Its up by Subway and Papa
Romano's, in that strip there.
Mr. LaPine:
I know where you're talking about. The next question, sir. You say
this is a fast food carryout. Why do you need 40 seats?
Mr. Liu:
No, it's a fast food so if people ...
Mr. LaPine:
Well, fast food wouldn't be 40 seats. Forty seats would be a sit
down restaurant. I dont understand why you need 40 seals.
Mr. Liu:
I think one reason is because of space. Ideally for carry out, we're
talking 1,000 square feet. But because this unit has 1,600 square
feel, so since we have space, the kitchen really does not require
that much space. So we just make the front bigger.
Mr. LaPine:
If I understand you right, it's fast food. When somebody says fast
food to me, it means take out to go home to eat it. But you say they
can eat it there because they gel plastic plates and plastic
everything. Is that right?
Mr. Liu:
Correct. Just like a MacDonald's. I see a definition between carry
out and fast food. Carty out can exclusively for ... you gel order,
you leave. The fast food is just like a MacDonald's. There's no one
serving you. There's no menu to place the order. So that's wiry.
Mr. LaPine:
How many days a week would you be open?
Mr. Liu:
Seven days.
Mr. LaPine:
And what would be the hours?
Mr. Liu:
From 11 a.m. to 10 p.m.
19879
Mr. McCann: Let me darify this. So, his first restaurant ... is that the one that
he's building in Northridge Commons?
Mr. Liu: That's his own restaurant, yes. His very first one, yes.
Mr. McCann: So he currently doesn't have an operating restaurant?
Mr. Liu: He does not have his own restaurant, but he operates a restaurant
for his sister.
Mr. McCann: And where is that restaurant?
Mr. Liu: In Taylor, Michigan, near the airport. That's also a similar
restaurant. It's also fast food carryout.
Mr. McCann:
One of my cencems, I don't mean to cul anybody off, but I've been
in the restaurant business for about 16 years. To go in and take on
one restaurant as a new venture and operate it is one thing, but to
open up two at the same time. Is he going to be able to handle
both of them? Obviously, he thinks so but ...
Mr. Liu:
I think probably he has a brother. The whole family is in the family
business. So he will probably manage one restaurant and his
brother will probably operate the other one.
Mr. McCann:
If I can speak to the owner of Northridge Commons? This was the
Sterling Bank & Trust Commons, or what do you call the mall there
now?
Mr. Field:
It used to be Laurel Commons. Now its Sterling Bank Commons, I
think.
Mr. McCann:
That's how we came up with the name. I remember we had some
fun with that.
Mr. Field:
Yes, we did.
Mr. McCann:
I use the photo shop there. I come into the different restaurants
and one of the things we talked about before is the majority of the
parking spaces aren't useable because they are all behind the
building where nobody know they are. It's a constant traffic jam in
there.
Mr. Field:
It's a busy place.
Mr. McCann:
Its very busy. I'm one of your customers. I use multiple
businesses in there, but I find that pulling in and parking in the lane
IPiiirl
right in front of the stores is almost dangerous for the customers
and the people because there is so much traffic. With the design
with so much parking in the rear, do you have any mandates with
your tenants that all employees park in the rear portion?
Mr. Field:
We do have a mandate for that. One thing, too, I want to point out.
Back in 1992, the Planning Commission approved a restaurant that
is no longer there called Furesato, a limited service restaurant. I
think they had 30 seats there. And that was in the back. It's now
been absorbed by Century 21. 1 think one of the things that's good
about this restaurant is that its up closer to the front and there are
parking spaces, as you say, maybe not in the front now, but in the
second and third rows out toward Michigan National Bank up in that
front area somewhat behind Boston Market, because they are
certainly a busy operation there too. One thing that certainly
helped us is David Row from Century 21. He has been helpful in
having all of his real estates folks park in the back. For the most
part, about half of the parking spaces in the back are used on a
pretty daily basis. Its a limited space. I would love to come to you
and ask you for another driveway so we could improve the traffic
flow. I don't think that would probably happen, but I'm pleased it's
busy, quite frankly. I'm pleased that there are people there that are
doing business and that people like you are coming to use it.
Mr. McCann:
Are you shopping for restaurants for tenants there?
Mr. Field:
No.
Mr. McCann:
It seems like the recent proposals that have come before us have
been restaurants or cultural restaurants or stores.
Mr. Field:
I don't think that we've had any restaurants of late come before you
at that location.
Mr. McCann:
Just Brueggers.
Mr. Field:
Brueggers was probably the last and that was in the early '90's, I
would say.
Mr. McCann:
The one in'92, whattype of restaurant was that?
Mr. Field:
I think Furesato was a Japanese dessert restaurant. It was an
interesting idea but it didn't make it.
Mr. Shane:
I'd like to ask the petitioner a question. The hours of operation that
you mentioned, I assume you'll serve lunch and dinner?
Mr. Liu:
Yes, just lunch and dinner.
U.91:1.1
Mr.
Shane:
When do you think is your busiest time?
Mr.
Liu:
Lunch.
Mr.Shane:
Lunchtime? Thank you.
Mr.
Alanskas:
You just said that you were not going to have a dinner menu. Now
you say you do have dinner?
Mr.
Liu:
No menu.
Mr.
Alanskas:
It's still fast food but in the evening?
Mr.
Liu:
It's still fast food. Correct.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Linda Parker: I'm going to be the manager. I owned a restaurant, Hu Long Paris,
in Farmington Hills for 12 years, and I retired for five years. He's a
good friend. I'm going to be manager there. And they have
restaurant in Taylor. And the three brothers and sister they own the
restaurant. They've been in the restaurant long time.
Mr. McCann: Is this going to be typical Chinese food that we are used to in the
menu?
Ms. Parker: Yes. Just a simple menu. Actually, we don't need 40 seats. They
just have extra room there and they decide ten table, eight table,
six table, you know for people who come in for lunches and they
want to sit down. And we just going to stock the ice box with Coke
and water and pop so they can sit down if they want to.
Mr. McCann: No delivery service?
Ms. Parker: Not right now. maybe in the future. We don't know yet.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to dose the public hearing.
Mr. Taormina: Actually, Mr. Chairman, if I may just direct a few questions to the
representative of the owner. I'm looking for a response to some of
the cencems outlined by our Inspection Department relative to the
center itself. Number one, the need for maintenance in the parking
lot. Number two, the need for paint along the north and east
elevations. Thirdly, there is an issue with trash. I'm not sure how
trash will be handled at this particular facility because apparently
IErrra
there is already a concern on how this is being handled along the
east side of the building. And lastly, some additional landscaping
apparently is needed as indicated here along the north building, the
west elevation. I'm rot sure precisely where that is. We'd have to
take a doser look at that if there is an area where some of the
landscaping was removed possibly.
Mr. Field:
Well, let's go from Iasi to first then. I'm not sure exactly where Mr.
Bishop is speaking with regard to landscaping.
Mr. McCann:
Did you receive a copy of the letter dated October 31, 2002?
Mr. Field:
No. But the petitioner got a copy and I reviewed it while we sat
here.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Do you want a copy of it?
Mr. Field:
I dont need a copy of that note.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Nowak has just clarified the issue relative to landscaping.
Apparently, it was landscaping that was shown on the approved
site plan for the center, and it's just west of the north building. Its
where this property abuts the office to the west, not the bank but
the other building. Apparently there is a greenbelt there that is
missing some shrubs and is not compliant with the approved
landscape plan.
Mr. Field:
Adjacent to the building itself?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Field:
All right, then we may have lost some things because of the
weather the last year. I know we did pull out some evergreens in
some spots, but that would be immediately adjacent to the building
itself. At the rear of the building, there's maybe two or three shrubs
that did get lost, and we pulled them out so they wouldn't look all
dead and woody. We have an ongoing program every year in the
Spring to go through and replace whatever is killed by salt or winter
damage or is killed otherwise just because of foot traffic or
whatever. That certainly can be remedied. I think there are two or
three bushes there now. I don't think it's a huge issue to take care
of that in the Spring. With regard to the trash, I think what was
observed at the time of the inspection was, there is a tendency for
tenants from time to time to go to the trash dumpster once or twice
a day. When they have trash, they set it out back along the curb.
When there's enough of it or they remember it, they take it back out
to the dumpster. We have a huge dumpster there. We have
increased our capacity by double what it was several years ago.
I
We just installed a new machine about eight months ago and that
has worked really flawlessly at this point. I visit the mall at least
once a week, and it's not often that you see trash out back, but it
does happen. I don't think that we have a real wind blown issue
there. We have people that come and sweep and pick up trash
almost daily, so if anything does gel away or gets down the alley
between us and the funeral home, it gets picked up and put into the
dumpster. The gas piping, interestingly enough, we just finished
the painting of all the gas piping in Northridge Commons this week.
Laurel is next; or Sterling Savings Commons is next on the agenda.
So that should be done in the next 10 days, weather provided
unless it snows every day for the next week. As far as the
pavement goes, I'm not aware of anything that is open or exposed
or potholes. That site is a very wet site. It moves every dear about
this time, and we have lots of little cracks. I will concede and it is
on the agenda for next year's replacement, the northwest area
which is a parking strip area that abuts the old tennis court building,
which is now offices. That never got replaced when we replaced
the entire lot about six years ago. That is absolutely in need of
replacement for the Spring of 2003. There's no argument there at
all. Even that though, I don't think there's any potholes or open
exposed asphalt. It is very fissured and very cracked, but it is still
in one piece, so I think we will make it through the winter. But
beyond that, I would agree. It needs to be done, and we have
money in the budget to do that. All these things are kind of ongoing
and part of owning a property this size or bigger, and that's why we
have people that do this and that's why we listen to you folks from
time to time when you see things. So we're willing to continue on in
our effort to keep the shopping mall in a first class order the way it
should be.
Mr. LaPine: I will say when I went back there behind the building on the west
side, there is some spots where the asphalt came loose. Its
nothing that's really bad, but it needs repair. Maybe you can wad to
Spring.
Mr. Field: Well, if d needs d now, we can still patch it.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, I agree. Other than that area that Mr. LaPine pointed out, the
parking lot isn't really that bad, but itis not double striped.
Mr. Field: I don't know that we can double stripe it and still give you the
parking spaces you need.
Mr. Piercecchi: They are still 10 feel wide, aren't they?
Mr. Field: I don't know if they're nines or lens. My guess is that they would be
nines, but I'm not positive.
f
Mr. Pieroecchi:
They should be tens.
Mr. Field:
Well, they are whatever they were. So if they're tens and we can
double stripe, then I can certainly double stripe. But it's always
been single striped. At least I've been with these guys for 12 years
and it's always been single striped to me, but we can certainly look
into double striping it.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
We like double striping because large cars don't bang up against it
and puldings in everybody else's side panels.
Mr. Field:
You'll guarantee that? I'll do that if you guarantee it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
People park right in the center of the inner lanes, so it gives a lot
more space In between cars. That's why we suggest it. In fad, it's
code now in Livonia.
Mr. Field:
Well, we stripe every year so next Spring we can certainly look into
doing that.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, itwas
#11-146-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-09-02-17 submitted by Wo Kit Cheng, on behalf of China
Kitchen, requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
restaurant at 37116 Six Mile Road located on the north side of Six
Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the
Southwest %of Section 8, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-09-02-17, as
amended to operate as a limited service restaurant, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed restaurant shall be limited to no more than
30 customer seats;
2. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated October 31, 2002:
- Maintenance, resealing and double striping of the parking
lot;
- Repair or repaving of the northwest parking area;
IiGid'd"
Repainting the gas piping and doors on the north and east
elevations;
Removal of the trash sitting outside the doors on the east
elevation;
Replacement of missing landscape daubs adjacent to the
west elevation of the north building;
Adequate and appropriate provision for trash and grease
removal/storage atthe restaurant;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06
of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, will the Secretary please
call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: La Pine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYES: Alanskas
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
IP1:L1i
Y1=17�F:'i",MJ=kIYOle] : KlIlYl511105 P�9=61/_\9=1 �Yill N =[�
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
10-02-19, submitted by Bill Tinker, on behalf of Vesta Ventures,
LLC, requesting waiver use approval to utilize a portion of the
property for outdoor storage of recreation vehicles and equipment,
boats and construction vehicles at 31411 Eight Mile Road, located
on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and
Osmus Avenue in the Northeast''/.of Section 3.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 27, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to
the proposal at this time. There is no additional right-of-way
required at this site. The first three words in the legal description
(That part of) should be eliminated. 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 November 6, 2002, which
reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with a request to utilize a portion of the property for
outdoor storage of recreational vehicles and equipment, boats, and
construction vehicles on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following
stipulation: Access shall be provided for emergency vehicles with
turning radius up to 45 feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical
clearance of 13.5 feet. Access lanes to be minimum of 20 feet wide
maintained free of obstruction." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated November 6, 2002, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the site plan in regard to the request for waiver use
approval to utilize a portion of the property for outdoor storage of
vehicles. We recommend that adequate lighting be installed in the
storage area for crime prevention and safety concerns. There is
some concern that the 22 -foot aisle width may be too narrow
should someone be attempting to back in a boaWailer using a full
size vehicle and the adjacent parking spaces are occupied." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 29,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October
25, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This Petition will require a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for adding to an existing noncronforming
t[uyi
building (0 front setback, 50 feet required, 0 side setback, 20 feet
required). (2) The existing fencing along the west property line
north of the relocated fence should be removed. (3) The required
parking area is not specified as double striped and the accessible
parking must be property sized, marked and signed. (4) The site is
already in use for RV storage, prior to approval. (5) No signage
has been reviewed. (6) No barbed wire is existing orproposed. (7)
The required adequate lighting facilities are not detailed and must
be provided to the satisfaction of the Commission and the Council.
(8) The required parking spaces for the office section would be 10
spaces. There is currently no provision for the required spaces for
the warehousing. This should be rectified to the Commission's and
Council's satisfaction. This Department has no further objections to
this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dale Pacynski, 2705 Lake Bridge, Wixom.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to explain anything further about your pefifion?
Mr. Pacynski: Yes. We have a couple of things that were brought up. We didn't
have the chance to review this when the Planning Commission got
done with it. We had moved the gate back perpendicular to where
the gate is now. What we would propose doing is to keep the fence
where it is and put the employee parking in the back area,
designated as employee parking. The problem with this is with the
fence where it is on the diagram right now. It would make one of
the overhead doors fairly unusable. We wouldn't be able to bring
trailers or trucks in and out of the building for warehousing because
of the fence being there. We currently relocated the fence along
the east -west line where the gate is currently. Parking spots 8
through 14 we would designate as employee parking and just leave
them inside the fenced in area. Furthermore, the recommendations
from the Inspedion Department to remove the western fence would
make the properly a lot less secure. Furthermore, that building
already has overhead garage doors on it, and it would allow that
building access to our lot. So what we would beg is that we keep
that fence up for security purposes.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, you just said that you use the building for warehousing
purposes. What do you work on?
Mr. Pacynski: We do high end home theater systems.
Mr. Alanskas: For the front of the building you're referring to?
f[FII7
Mr. Pacynski: Well, the front and the back. The back area is a warehouse, kind of
a buildout area. We'll bring in furniture and incorporate home
theater systems and do our testing and our small buildout type
stuff.
Mr. Alanskas: I, as one Commissioner, would like to say that your proposal looks
very good. We've had a hard time on that property. I think the use
that you want to bring in now would be ideal.
Mr. Pacynski: We had a properly at 33305 West Seven Mile that was right next to
Burkhart's Bakery. We got a lot of complements from the City on
the facade that we did with it. We really dressed it up and made it
look nice, and everybody was real happy with it.
Mr. Alanskas: Let me ask you. What do you do with regards to maintenance
when you have all these vehicles parked there as far as trash. Do
you go by there so often and clean up your lots?
Mr. Pacynski: Absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is that done on a monthly basis or weekly basis?
Mr. Pacynski:
Weekly. I don't know if you remember the property was owned at
one point in time by a company that they already had a waiver in
place for storage ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Modern Moving.
Mr. Pacynski:
Modern Moving. We look out the big propane tank and we dressed
R up quite considerably. I think we can do a lot of nice stuff to this
building.
Mr. Alanskas:
Its cleaned up very well now. Thank you.
Mr. Pacynski:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing.
Any last comments, sir?
Mr. Pacynski:
No, sir.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Chairman, I'll make the approving resolution. Now the Site
Plan takes into consideration, Mark, where he's going to move the
fence?
I
Mr. Taormina:
As I understand it, he wants to leave the fence where it is.
Mr. LaPine:
He's going to leave the fence where it is now and the parking is
going to be — not the way it's on the plan. But all I'm saying is, the
Site Plan dated November 21 shows the parking inside the fence.
Mr. McCann:
Well, we have to do it as amended.
Mr. LaPine:
As amended?
Mr. Taormina:
As amended referencing the fence but keeping the landscaping
along the frontage. There's no intention to change what's done on
the latest plan as far as landscaping.
Mr. Pacynski:
No, that's true. The only thing that they had forgot to put on was
that we're going to probably request a small island type of sign
similar to what's up and down Eight Mile Road.
Mr. McCann:
You'll have to come back before us on this because its all
landscaped. Right?
Mr. Pacynski:
I understand.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, you understand.
On a motion by
Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-147-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-10-02-19, submitted by Bill Tinker, on behalf of Vesta
Ventures, LLC, requesting waiver use approval to utilize a portion
of the property for outdoor storage of recreation vehicles and
equipment, boats and construction vehicles at 31411 Eight Mile
Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast %of Section
3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2002-09-02-19 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan prepared by Gallagher Group Construction
Co., Inc., dated November 21, 2002, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except that the security fence shall be
relocated so as not to be any doser than sixty (60') feel from
the right-of-way of Eight Mile Road;
I
2. That the Building Elevations as shown on the above
referenced Site Plan are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That the brick used in the new construction shall be full face 4 -
inch brick, no exceptions;
4. That the landscaping shown on the Site Plan is hereby
approved and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained
in a healthy condition;
5. That all landscape areas shall be fully irrigated with automatic
underground systems;
6. That the existing fencing along the west property line north of
the relocated fence shall be removed;
7. That the handicapped accessible parking shall be properly
sized, marked and signed;
8. That the site lighting maintained for security purposes shall be
arranged and aimed so as to refiect light towards the storage
area and away from streets and residential uses;
9. That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following requirements as contained in a letter
from the Fire and Rescue Division of the Department of Public
Safety dated November 6, 2002:
- Access shall be provided for emergency vehicles with
turning radius up to forty-five feel wall-to-wall and a
minimum vertical clearance of 13-Weel;
- Access lanes to be minimum of 20 feet wide maintained
free of obstructions;
10. That the storage of recreational vehicles/equipment units shall
be confined to the area identified for this purpose on the
above -referenced Site Plan;
11. That the vehicles and equipment stored or parked within the
designated outdoor storage area shall be limited to
Recreational Equipment as defined in Section 2.10(20) of the
Zoning Ordinance;
19891
12. That a sufficient number of off-street parking spaces be
provided for the office -showroom use and warehouse
employees; and
13. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for;
forthe following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Pacynski: Can I ask one question about that? I didn't hear the one part you
said about the fence on the west side.
Mr. Shane: Yes, I was going to say Item 6 ...
Mr. Pacynski: We're requesting to keep thatthere for security purposes and to
prevent the building next to us from having access to our yard.
Mr. La Pine: Does anyone have any objection to removing that? Do you have
any objection, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: I think what the Inspection Department was refering to was that
portion of the fence north of where it's being relocated. That's fine.
Mr. La Pine: Just from Eight Mile back.
Mr. Pacynski: Okay. That's fine. We had all intentions to do that.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. La Pine: You did a very nice job here. We appreciate it.
19892
YI�Ai E:f�9=klYOle] : DADYbULYbi -ll 7 I`J_1 E: [*I-.] J Y CP
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
10-02-21, submitted by Elwood Collins requesting waiver use
approval to operate an animal hospital at 34930 Ann Arbor Trail,
located on the northwest comer of Ann Arbor Trail and Wayne
Road in the Southwest%of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 31, 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. The legal description as presented does
not acknowledge the dedication of 60 feet of right-of-way for Wayne
Road. The description should be changed as follows. Our records
indicate that there is an additional 27 feet of right-of-way that needs
to be dedicated for Ann Arbor Trail to achieve a 60 foot right -of
way. We recommend that this dedication be done at this time.
This project may be subject to the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance. 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 November 6, 2002, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with
a request to operate an animal hospital within an existing building.
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 November 1, 2002, which reads as
follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal
requesting a waiver use approval to operate an animal hospital.
We have no objection to the request as proposed. It is our
recommendation that. (1) The shrubbery proposed near the
driveways be planted so as not to interfere with the exiting driver's
view of the sidewalk. (2) Stop signs be installed at each exit.
Please remind the petitioner that each handicap space must be
individually signed." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated November 7, 2002, and revised on November 8,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October
30, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The parking area requires maintenance,
resealing, double striping (with proper sizing also) and the barrier
19893
free parking property marked and signed and located as close as
possible to the accessible entrance(s). There does not appear to
be any parking lot lighting as required. (2) The landscaping needs
maintenance, especially along the north property line and the
southwest comer area. (3) The natural gas meter requires impact
protection such as a steel bollard(s) filled with concrete. (4) There
is no detail of the required soundproofing of the kennel area. This
is required by Ord. 543, not by the Building Code. This should be
addressed to the Commission's and Council's satisfaction. (5) The
entire facility (including reception desk) must meet the current
barrier free accessibility ode. This will be fully addressed at this
Department's plan review. (6) Signage has not been reviewed. (7)
The driveway is now very narrow next to the patient' kennel
addition. As there are no dimensions, it is unclear if traffic may still
exit there. At the least, this should be marked for egress only and
consideration should be given to vacating (abandoning) the last
marked parking space north of the kennel and in filling that area
with curbing and landscaping. A bollard for building protection
should be installed at the northwest comer of the new kennel. This
Department has no further objections to this 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?
Russell Govetle, 2137 Sashabaw Road, Ortonville, Michigan 48462. I'm
representing Dr. Collins, the petitioner. The doctor has purchased
a building already and has started doing some maintenance on the
building and the site itself because it was left unmaintained. He's
fixing roof leaks and started cleaning up the landscaping. His full
intention is to relocate his existing business so it won't affect the
density of that industry and to put on an addition to the house, what
is called a kennel, but it's not truly a kennel. It's just an area where
they have warm cages to keep some of the dogs recuperating
almost in intensive care, to keep them ovemighl or for the
recuperative period. The addition will match the existing facility, the
four -inch full face brick veneer with a dryvit system around the facia
Of it.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, how many vets or doctors are you going to have working there
during the daytime?
Mr. Govette:
There will be one vet working there during the daytime. Dr. Collins
is in his late seventies, and I think he may start working part-time
and then bang in another fellow part-time. He's got a son-in-law
and two or three daughters that are vets. So I think with their other
animal hospitals, they will share responsibilities. But in a 40 hour
period, there wouldn't be any more than 40 hours of doctor time
there.
Mr. Alanskas:
What is the maximum amount of animals that you could have there
at one time?
Mr. Govette:
Nine would be the maximum.
Mr. Alanskas:
I know you have nine stalls or cage areas, but could you have
more? If you got busy, if you had say 20 or 30 animals come in,
could you handle that in the building?
Mr. Govette:
No. There's not capacity for that. And I don't think its physically
possible to treat that many.
Mr. Alanskas:
What I'm alluding to is because of the fact that you are going to
have an animal hospital. Naturally when the animals come there,
theyre not feeling well. I'm wondering about noise. What do you
do to stop the noise from going to the outside of the building in
regards to them howling and whatever?
Mr. Govette:
The kennel area will be a block plus the brick. I dont know what
the sound coefficient is of that assembly off the lop of my head, but
you usually but a little bit more insulation up on the inside of the lid
which curtails any of that.
Mr. Alanskas:
To muffle the noise?
Mr. Govette:
Oh, it does.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Will there be dogs left there overnight? And if there is, is there
somebody there to tend to them?
Mr. Govette:
I know at times there are dogs overnight, and they do have a
system to monitor the dogs or cats. Its small animals. They do
have a system to monitor them overnight. I dont know their exact
system, but I know in the past history and the existing hospital, they
do check on the animals about every two hours. So I don't know if
they stay right there and check on them every two hours. I dont
know that answer.
Mr. LaPine:
As you know, some people are really attached to their pets. When
you have a real sick pet, and just put back in the kennel, and the
doctors go home and the dog takes a turn for the worse ...
I
Mr. Govette:
If you were b meet Dr. Collins, you wouldn't have any concem for
your pet. He's a very, very compassionate man that has devoted
his life. That's one of the reasons I'm representing him because
he's so busy at his work. He sits on many of the national
associations and so forth, and he assists many young graduating
doctors that just come out of schooling to enter service. He puts so
much time in, he didn't have time to concentrate on this building.
Mr. Alanskas:
Where is his present facility?
Mr. Govette:
I believe its 500 yards down the road, the Kershaw Animal
Hospital.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because I'd like to visit it.
Mr. La Pine:
Its right down the street.
Mr. Govette:
Dr. Collins has been in business there for well over 20 years. He
has just grown piecemeal, and it's attached to his home. He wants
to return it full-time to a residence and move this and have
something that flows a little bit more efficiently and gives him a little
bit better working environment.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this pelifion? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing.
A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Pieroecohi, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-148-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-10-02-21, submitted by Elwood Collins requesting waiver use
approval to operate an animal hospital at 34930 Ann Arbor Trail,
located on the northwest comer of Ann Arbor Trail and Wayne
Road in the Southwest %of Section 33, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefifion 2002-10-
02-21 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of 2 and the Floor Plan
marked Sheet 2 of 2, prepared by Mitchell Alfaro Architect,
both dated November 15, 2002 and received by the Planning
Commission on November 21, 2002, are hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That the Building Elevations, as shown on the above
referenced Site Plan, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
IEr•�ifi
3. That the brick used in the construction of the new addition
shall be full face 4 -inch brick, which shall match that of the
existing building, so that once completed, the entire structure
shall look as if ilwere constructed atone time;
4. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed of the same brick as 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 enclosure gates shall
be maintained and when not in use closed at all times;
5. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadways;
6. That the operation of the subject use shall not permit open or
outdoor runways for animals;
7. That the operation of the subject use shall not permit the
boarding of household pets except as is needed for the
provision of medical care for sick or diseased pets;
8. That all animal remains, medical and animal waste shall be
stored in a freezer or other such closed container inside the
building;
9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated November 7, 2002;
- Maintenance, resealing, double -striping (with proper sizing
also) of the parking areas and the barier-free parking
properly marked and signed and located as close as
possible to the accessible entrance(s);
- Maintenance of the landscaping, especially along the north
property line and the southwesterly comer area;
- That the building and the ventilating system used in
connection therewith shall be soundproof and such
soundproofing shall be approved by the Inspection
Department;
10. That slop signs shall be installed at each exit as
recommended by the Traffic Bureau in the correspondence
dated November 1, 2002;
19897
11. That no signs, either freestanding or wall -mounted, are
approved with this petition; and
12. That the specific plans referenced in the approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for;
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
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to indicate that I'm very pleased with the plan
that has been brought forward. I think it will be a nice improvement
there. I appreciate the petitioners listening to the suggestions
made and I look forward to a new building there.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canied and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to the City Council with an approving
resolution. This condudes 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
item?
I
ITEM #7 PETITION 200240-08-22 MAD BAZZY
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2002-
10-08-22, submitted by Imad Bazzy, requesting approval to
renovate the existing gas station located at 27430 Five Mile Road
in the Southeast%of Section 13.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest comer of Five Mile and Inkster.
The petifioner is requesting approval to renovate and transform the
existing Amoco Auto Service Center into a convenience store and
pump station. The facility would no longer do any type of auto
repairs. Basically, the exterior renovations would consist of
enlarging the building by means of two additions and a face-lift to
the front elevation. According to the petitioner, other than the
above-mentioned renovations, nothing else on the site, including
the parking lot, pump island canopies or landscaping, would be
touched. The existing auto service center is one-story in height and
2,200 sq. ft. in size. One of the additions would be to the northeast
comer of the station and essentially square off the back of the
building. This addition would be one-story in height and 546 sq. ft.
in area. The Floor Plan shows this addition would allow the
convenience store a large walk-in cooler and a handicap accessible
bathroom. The other addition would be b the east elevation and
extend the building out towards Inkster Road. Right now along the
east side of the building is a structural roof overhang. This
proposed addition would be one-story in height and 279 sq. ft. in
area. This addition would be used for additional convenience store
floor space and the expansion of the cashier counter. The Floor
Plan also shows that this new facility would have a restaurant
located within it. The petitioner has stated that there would be no
seating in the restaurant and that it would be carryout only. Even
though nothing has been finalized, the petitioner mentioned they
are looking at a sub shop, possibly Subway, occupying the space.
A carryout restaurant with no seating is permitted in a C-2 district
and does not equire waiver use approval. The required setback
for a gas station is 75 ft. from any road with a nghtofway of 120 ft.
Both Five Mile Road and Inkster Road are classified as Major
Thoroughfares and measure 120 ft. in width. The existing gas
station only sets back 50 ft. from Inkster Road and approximately
64 ft. from Five Mile Road. Once the east addition is added to the
building, the enlarged structure would only set back 40 ft. from
Inkster Road. Because of the deficient setbacks, the existing
service station is classified as nonconforming. It is prohibited to
add to a nonconforming building, and therefore a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. Parking is
summarized as follows: required parking is 15 spaces; the site plan
shows 9 spaces. Because the site would be deficient in parking, a
IEr•��I
variance from the ZBA would be required. The Site Plan does not
show any type of dumpster enclosure on the site. It is not known
how the petitioner plans on storing the trash that a convenience
store is known to accumulate. The Elevation Plan shows that the
south elevation would be completely refaced. The three large
overhead service bay doors would be removed and replaced by
windows. A note on the plan indicates that the front elevation
would be brick. The main entrance door would be relocated to the
middle of the storefront. Large windows would spread across the
elevation, on both sides of the door. The east addition would be
constructed out of concrete block. The window strip from the south
elevation would confinue and wrap slightly around the front comer
of this side elevation. The north addition would be constructed out
of concrete block and would match the existing block of the
elevation. Glass block windows would be installed on the north and
west elevations. A note on the plan states that the concrete block
of the north elevation would be painted. A color rendering has not
been submitted at this time.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated November 20, 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. However, we note that the building
addition will place more of the sanitary lead under the Floor slab and
will require moving additional facilities currently mounted on the
north face of the existing building. 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 November 7, 2002, which
reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with a request to build additions and renovate the
exterior of the existing gas station on property located at the above -
reference 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 November 19, 2002,
which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection
with a proposal to build additions to and renovate the exterior of the
gas station located at 27430 Five Mile Road. Our calculations
indicate that this site is deficient in parking spaces. Fifteen parking
spaces with one handicap space are required for this proposal. We
count three parking spaces on the northeast side of the building
and four parking spaces and one handicap space on the southwest
side of the building. We cannot count a possible fourth parking
space on the northeast side next to the sidewalk due to the location
of the light pole. We estimate that a minimum of two employees
19900
would be required to be working at the same time thereby reducing
the available parking still more. Due to the location of two
driveways that are in close proximity to the intersection, it would be
our recommendation that the driveway on Five Mile Road closest to
the intersection and the driveway on Inkster Road closest to the
Intersection be closed. The closing of these two driveways will
reduce the conflict between vehicular traffic entering or exiting
these driveways and the vehicular traffic on the roadway. The two
other existing driveways would need to be re -designed to allow for
easier access in and out of the property." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from
the Inspection Department, dated November 18, 2002, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 5, 2002, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This site is a non -conforming previously existing site.
The following zoning deficiencies exist. (a) Required site area is
22,500 square feet. Existing is 15,494 square feet (b) Street
frontage of 150 feet is required. Existing is 122 feet and 127 feet.
(c) Street setbacks to building are to be 75 feet. Existing on east
side is 40 feet plus or minus and the south side is 63 feet plus or
minus. (d) Driveways are to be a minimum of 25 feet from the
street intersection comer. Existing is 16 feet along Middlebe#
Road. (e) Driveways are to be a minimum of 30 feet apart.
Existing along Five Mile Road is 22 feet. (0 Pole sign exceeds 12
feet in height and has deficient setbacks. (g) The site is located
within 400 feet of residential districts to the north, west and south.
It would require a waiver of approval from 65% of the affected
residential areas. (h) The canopies are set 10 feet from the
property line. The Inkster canopy is deficient by 2 feet 6 inches.
The canopy along Five Mile is deficient by 4 feet. (2) A dumpster
was placed on the north side without an enclosure. (3) The
landscaping needs maintenance. (4) Existing parking light posts
need painting and repair. (5) Abandoned display cases and other
debris are stored outside along with containers west of the building.
(6) The parking area needs maintenance, resealing and double
striping. (7) This site will require the following zoning variances
from the Zoning Board of Appeals: (a) Adding and enlarging to a
non -conforming structure (as detailed in #1). (b) Deficient parking.
The site, as proposed, will have only 9 spaces. This site would
require 13 spaces plus one for each employee. We have used 15,
therefore the site is deficient 6 spaces. The barrier free access
aisle must be 8 feet wide. (8) The elevation of drawings are
incorrectly labeled. North and south are reversed. It is assumed
the canopies are remaining as existing. (9) No new signage 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.
19901
Mr. McCann: Is the pefifioner here this evening?
Imad Bazzy, 6130 College Drive, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127.
Paul Tuma, 24670 Hayes, Taylor, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to say or to respond to the
letters?
Mr. Tuma:
We've mel with Scott Miller on this matter a couple of times. We
have some deficiencies in our plan that we were going to address.
We'd like to bring them in on the next meeting. All we're doing is
things to the building. We're not doing anything on the outside. For
us to dose down any driveways in that manner would kind of hinder
the business totally.
Mr. McCann:
I hate to be interrupting. You're concerned about what you're doing
for business, but the Inspection report talks about countertops and
stuff being stored outside the building, and there are numerous
deficiencies that exist that can be dealt with at no cost to the
petitioner.
Mr. Tuma:
This we are going to address right away. In fad, we talked and
there is going to be someone out there no later than Monday to
take all this stuff that's out there, all the trash that's out there, out of
there. Because Mr. Bazzy just recently dosed the garage down,
this is kind of cleaning up. So all the things on the site will be
removed.
Mr. Bazzy:
The debris that's outside is just there temporarily while we're
cleaning up.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, there are so many deficiencies I dont know where to begin.
This is a nonconforming building. Its prohibited to add on to a
non -conforming building because of your deficiencies and your
setbacks and everything. What type of a restaurant did you want to
put in there?
Mr. Bazzy:
We were trying to gel Subway but that's no longer possible
because of the one that's one mile away at 96 and Inkster. It would
probably be something like Olivers, Chesterfry or pizza.
Something quick like that.
Mr. Alanskas:
But so far right now you don't even know what it is?
Mr. Bazzy:
No.
19902
Mr. Alanskas:
So that's an intangible, maybe. You need to come back and see
us. All right. What about all the other deficiencies that were read to
you?
Mr. Baay:
We're willing to meet all the deficiencies as possible.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, how can you add on to a building if you can't. It's prohibited.
Mr. Baay:
The east side that we're proposing, right now there's three posts
that hold up the roof. Its a dead space. We cant do anything with
it, so we want to enclose it. And the building, the back towards the
north, we're building that on. All we're going to put in it is the
coolers.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. La Pine:
My problem here is the gas station. You're doing nothing to
enhance the gas station. All you're doing is enhancing the building
to go to a convenience store and a restaurant. In reality, you're not
doing anything to enhance the gas station. Both the pump areas
need work on. You've got signs up on there. The whole thing is
just out of proportion. Number one, tie parcel is a little small to do
everything you want to do. Secondly, at one time this was one of
the nicest gas stations in the City of Livonia, if I remember right.
Maybe Mr. McCann remembers because he used to be over there.
They won some awards. Nrw it's in terrible shape. Now I don't
know, maybe what you want to do here is good as far as the
building is concerned, but to me the island, pumps and everything
should all be updated. Have you ever thought about going to some
other gas station and tearing this whole situation down and starting
from scratch?
Mr. Baay:
I wish financially I could afford it. But lel me add on, as you know
recently, BP has purchased Amoco. We're now BP Amoco and BP
Amoco has plans to come in and reface everything on the outside -
pumps, signages. And lheyre doing that worldwide.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, if you can come in with a plan and shoe me something like
that where they're going to update this whole area and you can gel
the variance, maybe I can look at it from a different perspective.
But for right now, the only thing I'm looking at is you want to make a
restaurant and a convenience store. Period. Thal's it. Nothing to
the rest of property.
Mr. Baay:
We're planning on also the landscaping. Brand new landscaping all
the way around.
19903
Mr. La Pine: What happened to the beautiful landscape you used to have there?
Mr. Baay:
I've only been at the location about two years.
Mr. La Pine:
Soyou're notthe original owner?
Mr. Baay:
No.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chairman, there are so many problems here, and I agree with
everything that my colleagues have said. Al best what I could do
here is tabling, if not denial. The tabling would give you an
opportunity to show what you're telling us, which is meet the
requirements in the various letters. If you can come back with
something that's more promising with respect to the rest of the
station, then I think you might find a more acceptable body. The
letter was quite lengthy.
Mr. Baay:
That's what we planned to do, but we got everything so late. That's
what this situation was. Everything came in so late that we didn't
have time to do anything about it, but we will.
Mr. Walsh:
I will offer the tabling resolution unless there's other comments.
Mr. Shane:
There is one other comment. The proposed addition on the east -
is that the part that would accept the restaurant?
Mr. Baay:
No, the restaurant would be on the west side.
Mr. Shane: What's the purpose of the proposed addition on the east side?
Mr. Baay: Sir, what I said ear. ier. There are three posts there that hold the
roof.
Mr.Shane: You want to enclose it in?
Mr. Baay: Right. Its a wasted space. A car cant drive through. We can't put
anything outside. Its like a one fool ramp up there. I don't know
why it was built to begin with. We want to make use of it. That's
the only reason.
Mr. Shane: Would this be a carryout restaurant?
Mr. Baay: Yes, sir.
Mr.Shane: How important is that carryout restaurentlo your business plan?
Mr. Baay: Studies have shown that gas stations with fast food restaurants
lend to bring in better money than an auto repairfacility.
19904
Mr. Shane: The problem I'm having is, again as others have stated, all the
deficiencies, which are caused partly by the proposed additions.
The parking requirement will never be mel. And you seem
unwilling to approach the idea of eliminating two driveway entries.
There's too many things wrong with this, and I'm having a lot of
trouble with that. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I just want you to understand if pu're going to come back to us, if
British Petroleum is going to take over the station and revamp it, I
want to see what theyre going to do. Number two, I don't like the
painting of the brick. If you're going to redo this, I want new brick.
Mr. Baay: We will re -brick the whole thing.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. We have to see all that, a rendering and how you're going to
do it.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, it was
#11-149-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2002-10-08-22, submitted by Imad B=y,
requesting approval to renovate the existing gas station located at
27430 Five Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 13, be tabled
to the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2003.
Mr. McCann: The next agenda would be the January 28"' meeting.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Why don't you put this in February?
Mr. McCann: Its not up to me. It's up to the maker of the motion.
Mr. Walsh: I defer to staff and our scheduling. I think we've been kind of
putting things into December and early January. Is the 2e an okay
dale?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, the January 28 meeting is good. I wouldn't do it any sooner
than that.
Mr. Walsh: I agree with that.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Pieroecchi suggested ... well, I don't want to do it at a public
hearing if I can avoid it.
Mr. Walsh: Lets do January 28r".
Mr. McCann: We can take a look at it then and see what progress you've made.
And also talk to BP. If they're going to come in, they may want to
19905
redo this. I mean you've got 20' it looks like behind the building to
move the building back in that direction. Maybe a whole revamp of
the whole site might be in order. Will the Secretary please call the
roll.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Walsh, La Pine, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYES:
Shane
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Your comment, sir?
Mr. Bazzy: BP does not own the site. The only commitment BP has is the
facial.
Mr. McCann: We will be revisiting this on the 28" which means that two weeks
before that, you have to have everything done and cleaned up so
that we can go out and visit the site. Any additional changes to the
plans have to be in to the Planning Department.
Mr. Tuma: We're planning on doing that right away.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2002-01-02-01 TIM HORTON'S
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
01-02-01, submitted by Nowak & Freus, LLC, on behalf of Tim
Horton's Restaurant, requesting approval to construct a
freestanding freezer building behind the existing restaurant located
a133500 Plymouth Road in the Southeast %ofSection28.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark. On March 27, 2002, this site received
waiver use approval for the construction of a Tim Horton's
Restaurant. The restaurant has been built and is currently in
operation. According to the petitioner, the restaurant is doing so
well that additional storage is needed. Tim Horton's is requesting
approval to construct a freestanding freezer unit behind the existing
building. The freezer unit would be used to store food items such
as extra donut dough. The proposed freestanding freezer would be
19906
112 sq. ft. in size and would be located on the existing loading pad
behind the restaurant. According to the Elevation Plan, the unit
would be 8 R. in height and the outside finish would be of a metal
type panel construction. This proposed freezer unit would be the
same height as the existing freezer unit attached to the rear of the
building.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated November 18, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We note that in order to
install the standalone freezer, the loading area will no longer be
usable. Since the area immediately north of the building curb is the
drive-through aisle, we suggest that consideration be given to
installing a loading area east of the dumpster enclosure. 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 November
7, 2002, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a stand-
alone freezer unit behind the existing structure on property located
at the above -referenced 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
November 14, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed
the request to construct a standalone freezer unit behind Tim
Horton's Restaurant. We have no objections or recommendations
regarding this request" The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated November 15, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of November 5, 2002, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This site cumently has a refrigeration tractor -trailer on site
occupying five parking spaces. (2) This proposed freezer is not
attached to the building and is an unattached accessory storage
building. (3) The exterior finish on the existing freezer does not
match the building. (However, it is constructed as approved.) It
appears the finish proposed for the new freezer would not match
the existing freezer. The Commission may wish to clarify this. This
Department has no further objections to this 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?
19907
Richard Sunkle, Tim Horton's, 4150 Tuller Road, Suite 236, Dublin, Ohio 43017
When we opened this store initially in early October, we found early
on that there was not going to be adequate freezer storage space.
That's when we presented this to Planning with a couple of options.
The two options were, one you see, the other one was locating it
out near the existing trash enclosure. Either way, it would work for
us. We really didn't have a preference. We ended up submitting
this plan as shown. The finishes would be identical to the existing
unit that is there now. I believe that was one of the questions in the
comments.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, how many restaurants do you have in the metropolitan area?
Mr. Sunkle:
We have approximately 20.
Mr. Alanskas:
And out of the 20 that you have, how many have the additional
freezer space that you are asking for?
Mr. Sunkle:
I'm not sure I can answer that question. I don't know.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is it quite a few?
Mr. Sunkle:
There are a number. See, what's happening: we changed the way
we're operating in the Iasi three months in that we're using more
frozen products. So some of the stores that don't have enough
interior storage will need to have these kinds of boxes added to the
outside.
Mr. Alanskas:
Have you been using these frozen products for more than four
months?
Mr. Sunkle:
No, they had just come out. As a matter of fad, this store started
with the frozen product.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because I'm wondering why. You just built the building.
Mr. Sunkle:
Correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
And I'm wondering why you didn't come to us originally and ask for
the additional space then instead of coming back now.
Mr. Sunkle:
Well, had we known ... we weren't sure when the timing was going
to happen. We weren't sure what the needs were going to be as
far as storage. We rolled this out in the Buffalo market, Columbus
market and now the Detroit market. And we didn't realized until the
other markets got up and running that we were going to need the
additional frozen food storage. That would have been ideal if we
IEFPI]
had realized that months ago. We would have basically put a unit
all the way across the back.
Mr. Alanskas: In other restaurants, do you also have trailers parked in the back?
Mr. Sunkle: No, we do not.
Mr. Alanskas: Just our site?
Mr. Sunkle: Just temporarily unfit we can put a unit up like we are proposing.
Mr. Alanskas: Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine: One of the problems we have, we were under the impression when
we approved that restaurant, Tim Horton's, and with the freezer
area, that everything was going to be brick. Now all of a sudden,
it'snotbrick. Why wasn't that done?
Mr. Sunkle: Well, it wasn't brought to my attention until about a month ago that
Mr. La Pine: And they roll d up the ramp.
that was the expectation. The plans were approved showing the
way we built it. I mean we could have enclosed it in brick early on if
we had known that was the requirement.
Mr. La Pine:
It looks like an add-on. That's the problem I have with it. What's
the problem with them bricking itnow, along with the new addition?
Mr. Sunkle:
Bricking the existing unit? Well, the major problem I can think of is
the transformer is there - the power coming into the building. If you
look at the drawing, it's directly behind that existing freezer. That
square box due north is the transformer. The primary power is
coming in from the east and it's coming from that transformer into
our building from that point.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Now the next question is, if you put the freezer where you
propose, what are you going to do about the receiving ramp bere?
Where are you going to move that lo?
Mr. Sunkle:
Well, I was told it was not a requirement to have a loading area. I
mean typically we have tractor -(milers delivering some of the
product so they cant utilize that space anyways.
Mr. La Pine:
They dont back in? They unload?
Mr. Sunkle:
No. They unload.
Mr. La Pine: And they roll d up the ramp.
19909
Mr. Sunkle:
Yeah. There's a ramp next to that. You can see where the
sidewalk is located. They'll be able to deliver product at the end of
that space. That was one of the questions I asked early on, if that
could be eliminated because we were talking about either putfing it
there or placing it next to the trash enclosure.
Mr. La Pine:
If it goes at the Iocaton you are proposing, you'll have access to
that from the inside of the restaurant. Is that right?
Mr. Sunkle:
To the new one?
Mr. La Pine:
Yes.
Mr. Sunkle:
No. It will be totally free-standing.
Mr. La Pine:
Oh, I see.
Mr. Sunkle:
And the reason is because we got gas meters, water meters,
everything else is along that back wall, and then the transformer.
There's no feasible way to attach it to the building.
Mr. La Pine:
The one that is there now is attached to the building.
Mr. Sunkle:
Correct.
Mr. La Pine:
And you enter it from the inside of the building.
Mr. Sunkle:
Correct.
Mr. La Pine:
But you can't do it with this one?
Mr. Sunkle:
No. This will be a freezer unit. If this was like a dry storage unit
where we could put on a door, maybe connect this to the building,
and then have a door outside, that would be doable. But since it's
a fieezer unit, there is really no way to make it happen that way.
Mr. La Pine:
Thankyou.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Will the exterior of this one be identical to the exterior of the one
that's there now?
Mr. Sunkle:
Yes, sir. The same exact finish. The same manufacturer makes
this unit as made the other one.
Mr. Alanskas:
Being that this merchandise is frozen, can't you just get more
deliveries as you use it and not need this freezer with your
delivering scheddes?
19910
Mr. Sunkle: Theyd probably be delivering every day. I'm not sure chats
feasible. I'm not sure exactly where the product is coming from.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do they deliver just like once a day?
Mr. Sunkle:
No, they're delivering I believe every
couple
days. I'm not sure
operationally what their schedule is.
Mr. Alanskas: But I mean could you possibly do that without putting this freezer in
and just doing a different delivery schedule, a more often delivery
schedule because it's frozen?
Mr. Sunkle: You know, I'm not sure. I do not know if that's feasible or not.
Mr. Alanskas: But it could be possible?
Mr. Sunkle: Possibly. I'm not sure. The product is coming from Canada, so I
don't know. We have one central bakery in Canada where all this
product is coming from. I'm not sure that's at all doable.
Mr. Alanskas: Wherever its coming from, whenever it's defrosted and cooked, it's
very good.
Mr. Sunkle: Well, I appreciate that.
Mr. La Pine: I've heard that recently Tim Horton's was bought out by Wendy's.
Is that true?
Mr. Sunkle: Yes, that's coned.
Mr. La Pine: Do they have any future plans of putting a Wendys here? I know
some ofthe Tim Horton's have Wendy's and Tim Horton's together.
Mr. Sunkle: Yeah. Not on this location. We try b do that whenever feasible,
but this site . we need about two acres to do that, but we
certainly wouldn't be able to here.
Mr. McCann: 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. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#11-150-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-01-02-01,
submitted by Nowak & Fraus, LLC, on behalf of Tim Horton's
Restaurant, requesting a revision to the petition that was previously
approved by Council Resolution 180-02 on March 27, 2002, for
19911
approval to construct a freestanding freezer building behind the
existing restaurant located at 33500 Plymouth Road in the
Southeast % of Section 28, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Thatthe Site Plan marked Sheet C2A dated October 21,
2002, as revised, prepared by Nowak & Fraus, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A5
dated July 17, 2002, prepared by Shremshock Architects, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That a brick screen wall shall be erected around the existing
and proposed freezer units so as to fully enclose them,
including any rooftop equipment;
4. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face 4
inch brick and shall match that of the principle building; and
5. 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.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. La Pine:
My only problem is, I like the idea of the four inch brick, but we can't
put the four inch brick on the existing freezer. I dont think it makes
sense to put it on this one here. I think that both should look about
the same, especially when this is not going to be attached to the
building as this gentleman said.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I agree.
Mr. McCann:
We're going to be losing the loading ramp.
Mr. LaPine:
He says they don't use the loading ramp.
Mr. McCann:
They say that because the want the freezer more than they do the
loading ramp. If they didn't use the loading ramp, they wouldn't
have put it into the original plan. Obviously, it's part of their agenda
and plan to have a loading ramp. I'm just wondering if we can't just
do a protective wall around the whole section there.
Mr. Walsh:
Its a possible solution.
19912
Mr. McCann: I think what we need is a long -tens soluton. Their short-term
solution is to put a trailer in the back and then put a freezer on their
loading ramp.
Mr. La Pine: But Mr. Chairman, didn't they indicate that they didn't have to put
the freezer there? They could put it back by the dumpster. I don't
know if that's a good idea.
Mr. Walsh: I'd rather have it where this plan shows it. Sir, if I may ask: if we
requested a wall around the whole area in the back there, is that a
possibility?
Mr. Sunkle: Inducing around the new freezer?
Mr. Walsh: Yes.
Mr. Sunkle: Again, it would depend on the electric coming into the building. I'm
not sure how deep the conduits from the Detroit Edison box are. If
you could visualize a line going due east from that transformer,
there's two five -inch conduits going east and there's two more
coming out south, coming into the building. I'm not sure what depth
theyre at, and that foundation for the brick would probably have to
be al least...
Mr. Alanskas: Forty-two inches.
Mr. Sunkle: Forty-two, 48 inches, yeah. I'm not sure that conduit is that deep.
Mr. Walsh: Well, that could be placed deeper, I suspect. You would incur some
additional costs, but couldn't you move the conduit down?
Mr. Sunkle: Well, I mean anything is possible. It may mean termination of some
powerfor a period oflime. Certainly, l dont know what.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine's comment is correct about the brick, but I like the
suggestion Mr. McCann has made. We've tabled so many things.
My preference would be to move this on and replace for condition
three, that there be a screening wall placed around the back area
there. Couldwedothat?
Mr. McCann: We could do that and pass it on to Council with an approving
resolution. If they do a protective wall around it, like similar brick,
then they can work it out there and we move it on that way.
Mr. Walsh: My preference would be to move it on. Sir, what that would do is
give you the opportunity to consider what we've said tonight. Then
you could find out how deep the conduit is and make your
arguments at the Council level.
19913
Mr. Sunkle: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: Given our goals and hours, I think this is probably the best
suggestion.
Mr. McCann: Will the supporter ofthe motion support that?
Mr. Shane: I have no problem with that.
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 855" Public
Hearing and Regular Meeting held on November 26, 2002, was adjourned at 11:55
p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr