HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-03-2321109
MINUTES OF THE 882ntl PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 882n° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Scott Miller, Planner III; Bill
Poppenger, Planner I; Ms. Debra Waller, Clerk Typist; and Ms. Marge Roney,
Program Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, 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 len 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 fling.
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.
Mr. Walsh: Let me take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Lee Morrow back to
the ranks of the Planning Commission. We are delighted to
have you back.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2004-01-01-02 HASAN RAKIPI
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-01-
01-02, submitted by Hasan Rakipi requesting to rezone property
at 9081 Middlebell located on the weslside of Middlebell Road
between Dover Avenue and Grandon Avenue in the Southeast
% of Section 35 from OS to R -C.
21110
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated February 6, 2004, 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 is correct,
however, the subdivision name should be spelled out as the
E.G. Settle Realty Company Bonaparte Gardens to agree with
the plat. An additional seven feet of right -0f --way should be
dedicated to Wayne County at this time." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Mr. Morrow:
On the three units that are presently under construction, were
they required to go to the ZBA for setback reasons?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, they were, and they received variances in the front as well
as the side and rear yard for those units.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Frank Rakipi,
Rakipi and Company, 4926 Maple Street, Dearborn, Michigan
48126.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far?
Mr. Rakipi:
As far as the shared driveway is concerned, we are waiting on
that. We wanted the Board's input on how we would go about
that. That's something that we are considering to make more
attractive and safer for future buyers instead of backing out into
Middlebell directly. They will have somewhere to back out into.
Other than that, if you have any questions for me ...
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi:
There would be one remaining home between this particular
package and the three -unit package north of you. Correct?
21111
Mr. Rakipi:
Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Have you made any attempts to purchase that Ione home?
Mr. Rakipi:
We have not. Our first plans were just to develop the properly
that we own for the three units.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Do you own the house that would be south of that one? Right
now there are two houses. Right?
Mr. Rakipi:
Right. We own 9081 and that's all we are considering
developing at this time.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm just curious. You said you're looking into the possibility of
the shared driveway so you won't have to back out. I don't
understand. Dont you own the properly? Can't you control
that?
Mr. Rakipi:
Yes. What I meant is, we didn't have the engineering done on it
yet.
Mr. LaPine:
But it is going to go in?
Mr. Rakipi:
Oh, absolutely. It's going to look very similar to the ...
Mr. LaPine:
I just misunderstood you. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Robert Rizzo,
9039 Middlebelt, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I'm the
property owner immediately to the south of Mr. Rakipi. I have
no problem with the rezoning, and I hope that if Mr. Rakipi
decides to develop it himself, that the City will encourage him to
do so. Thank you.
Edith Leon, 9046 Fremont, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I live on the
opposite side of the property. Not exactly behind that property,
but kitty corner to him, so I live actually behind the gentleman
that was just here. I live in that whole residential section on the
opposite side. I guess my concern is that, is this structure going
to be two-story? Is this what I'm understanding? It's going to
be a two-story structure?
Mr. Walsh:
That's correct.
21112
Ms. Leon: Okay. So my concern is the privacy. It's privacy concerns for
my property and for other properties, but for mine specifically. I
moved into a residenlial area where there are all homes, and all
of a sudden there's condominiums popping up here and there.
And now that they have a second floor there, I actually oppose
this plan because of that, because I feel that it's an infringement
on the residential area that I wanted to move into. The other
concern I had is that there was a certain distance from the end
of the structure right to the back, so that would be to the rear to
the other residences. There's a certain amount of distance that
you need there.
Mr. Walsh: That's correct.
Ms. Leon: And he already needs a deviation. Is that correct?
Mr. Walsh: He will need to go to the ZBA for a variance because it doesn't
meet the requirements.
Ms. Leon: Is it about like 10 feet, you said?
Mr. Walsh: Mark, could you remind us what the shortage is?
Mr. Taormina: The requirement is that the building be at least 50 feel from the
rear property line, which is the common property line. They are
showing 30 feet on the conceptual plan. So a variance of 20
feet would be required under this plan.
Ms. Leon: Okay. That's quite a bit. I've seen the other condos that went
up and they sit very close to the fence of the property behind
them. I just have a concern with that. That building structure is
now so much moved over to the property, and then they're also
taller, and you just lose your privacy. That's all I have.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, may I ask her one question?
Mr. Walsh: Yes, Mr. LaPine.
Mr. LaPine: Ma'm, you live in a ranch -type house?
Ms. Leon: Yes, Ido.
Mr. LaPine: In the area where you live, are there any colonials?
Ms. Leon: No. I believe the whole row are all one-story ranch homes.
21113
Mr. LaPine: Thank you
Mary Talarek, 29437 Grandon, Livonia, Michigan. I own the duplex on Grandon
around the corner from this at 29437 Grandon. My concern is
density. You know, Middlebell has a lot of townhouses or
condos and they were set back with little boulevards in front so
cars could park off of Middlebell, and this was all done with
beautiful City planning and they are attractive. And now we're
allowing these condos to come in and park right up to the street
with no back space, no front space. If people have family
members or parties in those houses, there's congestion and
there's no parking. There's no place for children. And its just
loo dense. I know that Livonia doesn't like density because we
were turned down to build a house on a 40 fool lot we owned
and we only wanted a single family house on a 40 fool lot. And
they said, no, it's loo dense. And so now you want to put three
condominiums on a lot, which if you look at your own little paper
here, it is equivalent to two of the houses on the back side of the
properly. Those two houses are awful small. They must be 40
fool lots. They are out of the regular 60 fool lots required by the
City. So that's like 80 fool and now you're slicking three
houses, large houses, two-story houses, and I'm wondering
what happened to the City commission program that said
density is important in Livonia and we don't want to crowd in the
houses. Here we're laking office space and we're making
housing. On Farmington Road here, we're culling down seven
houses to put up office space. You know, you have houses and
you're making it commercial. And you have commercial zoned,
and you're making it into residential with no planning, no
foresight, and no concern for what we used to do a couple years
ago, and talked density, density, density. You had to have so
much space for people, so much space for children, so much
space for parking. And now you're scribbling all that sluff off
and you're erasing it all and giving everybody variances. And I
object and that's going to make that part of Livonia in a couple
years slums because it's loo congested. And you're making it
congested by laking large buildings and squeezing them on
small lots. And I am opposed to this. Thank you.
Dana Raven, 9101 Middlebell, Livonia, Michigan. I have the property in between
the condos and the proposed. I personally don't have an
objection to rezoning that. A correction on your sizes, on my
parcel, I have 100 feet, not 80 feet. As far as the issues on
traffic, I don't really see that being a problem there. My home
sits back further than the condos that are there and sits higher
than the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood and privacy
21114
really isn't a factor. I'd like to see this go through. The only
thing that I might like to see different on it, ad it's really not a
major point, is I'd like to see three bedrooms instead of two
because you have a lot of two bedrooms across the street.
You've got three bedrooms next door. Like I said, it's not a
major issue. But again, the traffic isn't that much of afactor.
What they propose is actually better than what the homes have
there now. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition? Would the petitioner like to address us
again before we move on to a motion?
Mr. Rakipi:
I'd like to thank everybody who came up and spoke and that
voiced their opinions. I hope that the Board will lake everything
into consideration and make a decision based on our proposal.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Walsh:
If there are no further questions or comments from the
Commission, I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is
in order.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was
#03-35-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 23, 2004, on
Petition 2004-01-01-02 submitted by Hasan Rakipi requesting to
rezone properly at 9081 Middlebell located on the west side of
Middlebell Road between Dover Avenue and Grandon Avenue
in the Southeast % of Section 35 from OS to R -C, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2004-01-01-02 be approved for the following reasons:
1. Thallhe proposed change ofzoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the zoning and land uses in this area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a
buffer or transition zone to protect existing single family
residential uses in the area immediately to the west of the
subject property from the adverse effects associated with
and/or emanating from the Middlebelt Road corridor;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will allow for the
development of the subject property in a residential mode;
and
21115
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more
of a variety of housing types in this area.
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. Walsh:
We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to gel up to speed a little bit here. If I
recall correctly, this is purely a zoning issue and the petitioner
will be required to come back if he prevails for zoning with a site
plan on this development.
Mr. Walsh:
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
That what we saw tonight was only an insight to what he wants
to do, but there will be a site plan approval process where we
will get down to specifics. That's for the interest of the
audience.
Mr. Walsh:
That's absolutely correct.
Mr. Shane:
I have two concerns about this petition. One is that under the
proposed zoning district, the petitioner can come no where near
meeting the setback requirements. And therefore, this building
is going to be quite close to Middlebelt Road, which brings up
my second concern. I question the quality of life you could
expect that close to Middlebelt Road with all of the traffic, etc.,
traffic noise. Accordingly, I'm not going to be supporting this
petition.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I believe that since it is near impossible for this
site to meet our regulations for any type of residential
developments, an RC classification appears appropriate under
these conditions and would be compatible with the surroundings
inasmuch as there is a similar package just north of there.
Mr. Walsh:
Any additional comments or questions from the commissioners?
Hearing none, would the secretary please call the roll.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Smiley, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYES: La Pine, Shane, Walsh
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
21116
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 200401-01-03 LEO SOAVE BLDG.
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
01-01-03, submitted by Leo Soave Building, Inc. requesting to
rezone property at 20151 Gill Road located on the west side of
Gill Road between Navin Avenue and Norfolk Avenue in the
Northwest 114 of Section 4 from RUF to R3.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petdion plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated February 11, 2004, 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 is correct and
no additional right -0f --way dedication is required at this time.
The petitioner has indicated the right-of-way limits within the
development. Detention facilities will be required in accordance
with the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
Hearing none, is the petitioner here this evening?
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. I
am representing Mr. Leo Soave, who is in Florida right now and
couldn't make the meeting. I think Mr. Taormina indicated what
we were going to do. As he pointed out, to the south, the
majority of it, Summer Creek Sub is R-3. On the east side of
Gill Road, Windridge Subdivision is R-3, and we are proposing
and requesting that this parcel be converted to R-3. I would like
to point out at this time that this specific sketch you are looking
at was not prepared by me, and I'm somewhat concerned as to
whether or not the position of that existing house is correct or
not. I was just brought on board a couple weeks ago, and I
can't attest to the exact location of that house, which we realize
if the side is shown on that house as being an eight fool side
21117
yard to the new proposed street, that would be in violation of the
R-3 minimum side of the house. The street has to be, I believe,
19 feel. So, I suggest that the site plan could be tweaked and
turned in some direction or ways to either clear this house,
move the house, or remove the house. I believe at this time
what we're looking at is the land use per se, and certainly we'll
be back with a pre -preliminary plat to show the layout and the
existing or proposed size of the lots and what's going to happen
to that existing home. Fortunately, I would say by cleaning this
area up, we'll gel rid of the two, what I would call unsightly,
chicken barns that are there and have been there for quite some
time. I think it would be in order to slay with the existing area R-
3 would certainly be acceptable, or hopefully you'll find it that
way. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine: I know, Mr. Roskelly, that you came in late on this, but I was
under the impression that Mr. Soave bought all this property.
But I notice that there's a sign on the parcel where the house is
that says "Joe Durso, for sale." What's the story on that? He
didn't buy that parcel? I agree with you. If Soave didn't buy that
house and that parcel, I'm for tearing the house down and re-
calculating this whole subdivision.
Mr. Roskelly: Through the chair to Mr. LaPine, I don't necessarily agree that
the house has to come down if there's a proper way we can
keep it there. To answer your other question, perhaps his son,
who is present, may answer that. I'm of the opinion that Mr.
Soave bought the entire parcel, and I have a listing here that
shows that it's for sale by Mr. Durso.
Mr. LaPine: Right.
Mr. Roskelly: So I kind of scratch my head too, but perhaps he can answer
that.
Mr. LaPine: Okay, the other question, I brought up the subject of the trees.
You know that line of trees that goes through the miiddle of the
lot?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I don't want those trees to disappear. What's going to happen
to them?
21118
Mr. Roskelly: I suggested, the way I look at it, we haven't located those trees.
If for some fortunate thing they would be in the front lot, which it
could be, or in the road right-of-way other than where the
pavement is, they'll be saved. If not, they'll be removed and
then I suggest they should be replaced.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh: If we could have the question answered, that would be great.
Marco Soave, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening.
To try to answer that question, he does own the entire parcel
and the sign is up just with the hopes of selling off the existing
house and to go with building the new homes on the rest of the
lots.
Mr. Walsh: So Mr. Durso is acting as a real estate agent on your father's
Mr. Roskelly: I'll add to that and say, as I've said before, because of the
tightness and the width of this property, we're hung with 120
fool deep, so if these trees, we'll know prior at the next lime we
have a meeting, when we have a site plan, we'll show the exact
location of the trees. As I've said before, they're very nice trees.
I looked at them yesterday and the whole thing is very nice
lawn. I suggest that they would be replaced if they have to be
removed.
Mr. LaPine: They're pretty mature trees. Al one time, that parcel had three
rows of trees, and he sold off two of them. They were smaller
trees back in those days.
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: And these are pretty mature trees.
behalf?
Mr.
Soave:
Exactly right.
Mr.
Walsh:
Okay.
Mr.
LaPine:
What's the answer on the trees?
Mr.
Soave:
I'm sure you probably know my dad likes to save as many trees
as possible, so that's the intent. I'm not exactly sure what can
be saved and what can't, but ...
Mr. Roskelly: I'll add to that and say, as I've said before, because of the
tightness and the width of this property, we're hung with 120
fool deep, so if these trees, we'll know prior at the next lime we
have a meeting, when we have a site plan, we'll show the exact
location of the trees. As I've said before, they're very nice trees.
I looked at them yesterday and the whole thing is very nice
lawn. I suggest that they would be replaced if they have to be
removed.
Mr. LaPine: They're pretty mature trees. Al one time, that parcel had three
rows of trees, and he sold off two of them. They were smaller
trees back in those days.
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: And these are pretty mature trees.
21119
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine, Mrs. Smileyjust reminded me. If I'm not mistaken, I
think last week Mr. Soave indicated that those trees may have
been sold separate from the properly by the current owner. Is
that true?
Mr. LaPine:
I would like to know what's going to happen to the trees before I
approve anything.
Mr. Walsh:
My recollection from Iasi week was Mr. Soave had indicated that
those trees were sold by the current owner to other people. The
implication being that they will be removed from the properly.
Mr. LaPine:
You may be right, Mr.Chairrnan, but that's not the way I
understood R.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay.
Mr. Roskelly:
Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not aware of that fact, so I may have
spoke out of turn, but my answer to Mr. LaPine's question was,
if in the event they went in the road, they'd have to be either
moved and replaced or removed. Period.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. Mr. Piercecchi?
Mr. Piercecchi:
I was going to comment, and you did. I'm quite sure that at our
study meeting when Mr. Soave presented this package to us
that he stated that those trees were all sold.
Mr. Roskelly:
That's news to me.
Mr. Alanskas:
What he said is, he thought that the owner might buy those but
he did not, so the trees are going to stay there.
Mr. Walsh:
Well, that's a good question for all of us then. And you're not
able to answer this one way or the other?
Mr. Soave:
I'm not aware of the trees being sold separately at all. Itwas my
understanding that they came with the properly, and he was
going to try to, you know, keep as many as possible. They're
beautiful trees, and he'd obviously want to try to save what he
could.
Mr. Walsh:
Well, lets proceed. This may or may not impact the vole this
evening. I think we have now three different versions of what
was said. Mr. Shane?
21120
Mr. Shane:
I
just wanted to comment that since this is an item in regards to
change
in zoning on this property, we're going to have plenty of
time to deal with these little details later. So if and when this is
rezoned, then he has to come back with detailed plans
anyways, so ft's not like we need to know right now about the
trees and so forth.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Roskelly, if a decision were made to do away with the
existing home that is there, would that be enough space to yield
another buildable lot?
Mr. Roskelly:
As I see it and because of the configuration of the land, I do not
believe you would gain another lot because that would have to
become the depth, and it's only 98 feet. I suggest that you
would not gel a second lot if the home was removed.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I was hoping that maybe it might convince him to remove
the home, but I'm sure you'll look at it a little closer to see if you
could.
Mr. Roskelly:
I think in fairness, as oflonighl, ifwe could gelyour blessings or
recommendation for the rezoning, that would give us adequate
time to do our preliminary engineering, preliminary layout, and
at a later date, at the time of the preliminary plat, you would
have more to look at.
Mr. Morrow:
And I wanted to plant the seed.
Mr. Roskelly:
Thankyou. Planted.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
James Rabaut,
34593 Navin, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. It appears to
me in looking at this proposed site plan that the homes that
would be going up would be facing the new road that's coming
in, which would be totally different from the homes that are
along Navin Road as it is. In other words, if that is the case, it's
once more looking like a hodgepodge on that road. Quite
frankly, I think that we have more than enough roads coming
into Navin between Seven and Eight Mile Road. I would
reiterate the statement made by the woman earlier that this is,
to me, just extreme density that is not needed or wanted. I
enjoy that area. I enjoy the trees that are on that property and if
somebody said, well, I want to build homes just along Navin, I
21121
don't have any objection. But to build another road in there to fit
nine homes, I think is absolutely ridiculous.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you sir.
Jenny Krenz,
34075 Pembroke, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I live in the
Woodbrook Subdivision across the street from this piece of
property. I have several items of concern. 1, along with
probably a lot of other people, are getting very tired of looking at
the 90's cookie culler house with the double entry, two-story
arch, the palladium windows, the various roof elevations, the tan
brick, and I think that's all theyre building because that's all
they're offering to the buyers. If this passes, I would like to see
the homes be more compatible with the architectural structure in
Deer Creek, Summer Creek and in Woodbrook. More of a
variety. Lets have a little creativity in our architecture. I mean,
the City is just starling to look really boring when you get to the
northern end. Every house is the same, and I would think that
everybody who makes the decision to rezone here, you have to
take responsibility for that, and it's just not making Livonia an
attractive city any more.
Mr. Walsh:
Ma'm,just to remind you, this is zoning tonight. Your comments
will make it into the record. We'll come back for site plan
approval and I encourage you ...
Ms. Krenz:
Right, but hopefully you will consider this.
Mr. Walsh:
Well, of course. But I would encourage you to return at that
point as well if this passes this evening.
Ms. Krenz:
Okay, and I agree with that other woman who spoke to the
previous
petition about the density. I dont see why Mr. Soave
has to build
on every piece of available land in Livonia. He's got
the subdivision going over there on Chestnut Creek and you
know, leave us a little land. Leave us a little breathing space.
Enough is enough. And I haw to ask, is this for the betterment
of the City or is it for the tax dollars that it will accumulate?
Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
Ma'm, I didn't gel your address. Where do you live?
Ms. Krenz:
34075 Pembroke. I'm in the Woodbrook sub.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. Thank you.
21122
Mary McLeod, 20268 Whitby, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I agree with
everything that Jenny said, but if you guys are predisposed to
approve this rezoning, I would hope that you would encourage
them on Lot 2 to make that home face Gill Road rather than
face the new street so that it would be consistent with the
homes along Gill Road. Personally, I agree that we've got loo
many of these high density pocket subdivisions going in Livonia.
They just did one of those right up there off of Eight Mile, and if
you drive through there and look at those homes, some of those
homes just dont fl the neighborhood at all. My other concern
here is water pressure. We have a water pressure issue up in
the northwest Livonia. The Detroit Water Board increased our
water pressure a year ago, and it was wonderful for a few days
unfil all the water lines started breaking and so they backed it off
again. I'm wondering what's going to happen with water
pressure up there because we're getting a bunch of new homes
up there now, and I don't see any changes to our water
situation. We all have pumps on our sprinkler systems because
that's the only way you can make a sprinkler system work in
northwest Livonia. I would hope that you would reconsider
rezoning this land. Lel them build a nice big new house, one
house, on that properly rather than eight houses. Thank you.
Terrance Cannon, 20128 Whitby, Livonia, Michigan. I live in the Woodbrook
Subdivision right across the street from that property. As they
said, I'm worried about the density, but if you're going to pass
this, at least consider the sizes of the homes that go on. Our
average size is 2,400 square feel to 2,600. Going and putting
3,200 - 3,400 square fool homes on these properties won't look
like the rest of the sub, and I'd like you to consider that. As
Mary said, when you're coming up Eight Mile, all the homes are
facing Gill Road. Now you're going to come up all of a sudden,
you know, there's a house facing this way. One facing Gill
Road, one facing you as you come up, the next house is facing
Gill Road. Tear down the old house that's there, and if you can,
put both of them facing that way and then the rest in, that would
at least look more presentable. Thank you.
Bonnie Rabaul, 34593 Navin, Livonia, Michigan. My husband spoke previously
this evening, but I would just also like to say that, you know, we
have really enjoyed the more open field that we have up there
on Gill Road with the open space, and I myself really object to
them putting this many houses in. I would prefer to see the
space left open, but if you must continue to add development to
Livonia, if they could consider reducing that to one or possible
21123
two homes that face Gill Road and are compatible with the sizes
of the other homes in the area. Thank you.
James Chakel,
34160 Navin, Livonia, Michigan. My concern with the rezoning of
this would be the size of the houses fitting into the existing
neighborhoods, which might be a planning meeting further
down, but one of the things that I wish you'd lake into
consideration. My concern with the rezoning of this would be
the size of the houses filling into the existing neighborhoods,
which might be a planning meeting further down but one of the
things that I wish you'd take into consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, for the "B" classification that occurs on the
Summer Creek Subdivision and also Fairway Sub No. 2, can
you tell me the minimize size of the houses that are required?
Mr. Taormina:
I will have to get that information for you. Unfortunately, I can't
recite d. We really haven't relied on those minimum house sizes
for quite a while since all new construction exceeds these
minimums.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I happen to have that information. According to
my data here, in a two-story package, "A" would be 1,380, "B"
would be 1,560, and "C" would be 1,800.
Mr. Walsh:
Dan, what was the B?
Mr. Piercecchi:
1,560. That's a two-story plan, one family. I think those are still
current.
Mr. Shane:
Which is far less than what we would probably expect.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one comment, and I certainly
respect what a lot of the residents said. I just want to point out
that the zoning we're considering tonight is certainly compatible
with the existing zoning in that area with the exception of the
people that live along Norfolk and north of that, so I just wanted
to make that comment.
Mr. Roskelly:
Just a couple of comments. Several people indicated density
factor. On the east side of Gill Road, the entire area is the
same zoning and the same density that we're asking for. To the
west and partially to the south, again it's R-3, and it would be
the same density that we're asking for. As to having this parcel
of land, asking for nine sites, I don't think it's unreasonable. The
English law says one should be allowed to use their land in a
21124
proper method and in this case, that's all we're asking for.
Secondly, with the school systems the way they are, perhaps
nine homes will bring along 16 or 18 children to the public
schools. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: If there are no other questions or comments, I'm going to close
the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-36-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 23, 2004, on
Petition 2004-01-01-03 submitted by Leo Soave Building, Inc.
requesting to rezone properly at 20151 Gill Road located on the
west side of Gill Road between Navin Avenue and Norfolk
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUF to R-3, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2004-01-01-03 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot
sizes which are consistent with the lots in the immediately
adjacent subdivision to the south and west;
2. Thatlhe proposed change ofzoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning 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 of low density
residential land uses in the general area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an existing zoning district occurring on
adjacent properties to the south and west.
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. Walsh: Is there discussion? If there is none, I'm just going to speak
briefly. I do intend to support the motion. This is entirely
21125
compatible with the surrounding properly. If you look at the
migration of this zoning, virtually all the homes that surround it,
were the benefit of actions taken by this body and Councils
previously. I myself live in Deer Creek, which was not always
R-3. It has become that way in this area, and this one area now
is Teff. It's a beautiful green area, but these people have
properly rights and they do have, in my opinion, the right to use
the property consistent with owners that abut it. If this does
pass this evening, I do encourage those of you who spoke
about the size of the homes, the location, to join us when the
site plan comes forward. You will have an opportunity to
address this with the Council shortly. If it passes there, then
we'll come back for the site plan. I hope that you will bring your
ideas to that meeting.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Y Y=1 1i FRS 9 =k 1 II I [a] IeUIBL•CH71 IN iy71111-'
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
02-02-05 submitted by Claddagh Irish Pub requesting waiver
use approval to construct a full-service free-standing restaurant
at 17800 Haggerty Road located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Walsh: I'd like to indicate at this point and time before the staff makes
the presentation that this development will occur on property
owned by SchoolcraR College. Because I am an employee of
SchoolcraR College, I intend to step off the podium. I pass the
gavel to Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will the secretary please note that
Mr. Walsh stepped down at 8:19 p.m.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 24, 2004, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
21126
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description,
which describes the overall 50.99 acre parcel, is correct and no
additional right of way dedication is required at this time. We
are in receipt of an MDEQ permit for the overall development,
which includes the installation of the culverts, which will be
necessary in conjunction with this petition." The letter is signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 2, 2004,
which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a full service
free standing restaurant on property located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in
the Southwest X of Section 7. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building is
to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant
shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire
Department connection. (2) Access around building shall be
provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 45
feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-Y§ feet.
(3) Hydrant spacing in the commercial/retail groupings shall be
consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances." The letter is signed
by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from
the Division of Police, dated March 4, 2004, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal
to construct a full-service free-standing restaurant. Customer
seating requires 157 parking spaces along with additional
parking for employees. With a low estimate of 10 employees,
the total number of parking spaces required is 167. The site
plan shows a total of 191 parking spaces. Our concern is that
there will not be sufficient parking for other businesses that are
planned for this area." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 2, 2004, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 23, 2004, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted: (1) This petition will require approximately 178 parking
spaces (158 for patrons, 20 for employees). It is unclear if 178
spaces are dedicated for this site. All parking is to be double
striped. (2) The barrier free parking may need to be shifted to
the north to be the closest parking to the entrance. Moreover,
there should be a blue marked crossing aisle from the barrier
free parking to the dedicated ramp. (3) No signage has been
reviewed. However, there appears to be an overabundance of
exterior signs proposed. This Department has no further
objections to the petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
21127
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
Hearing none, would the petitioner please come forward and
give us your name and address please.
Robert Wineman, Schoolcraff Commons, LLC, 29100 Northwestern Highway,
Southfield, Michigan 48034. Good evening. I am with the
Walkon Elkin Partnership. Chris Shepherd is with Claddagh. I
just wanted to indulge your patience for one quick moment to
tell you two things. One, as the overall developers of the
project, we are fully supportive of the package you have before
you this evening. And then secondly, just to reiterate Mr.
Taromina's comment relative to the parking on the enclosure in
your package, it is fully our intention with respect to the Phase
One work that will be commencing within the next 30 days, to
improve the 69 parking spaces on whalwe've got designated as
Office Building B. So I just wanted to clarify that with you. With
that, Chris Shepherd with Claddagh Irish Pub is here to answer
any questions you have and give you a little information on his
operation, and also to go into some detail about some of the
design criteria.
Chris Shepherd, Claddagh Irish Pub, 4929 Graceland Avenue, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46208.
Mr. Alanskas:
Whatwould you like to tell us about the project?
Mr. Shepherd:
I'm open to any questions that you may have. You saw the
design criteria that we have. I think
one of the things that kept
coming up was the signage. We really only actually have three
signs that are lit on the building. A lot of the items that people
are viewing as signage is actually artwork. They're different
terms in the Gaelic language that are on the building that you
would typically see in a pub in Ireland. They are not backlit or lit
up in any way.
Mr. Alanskas:
But with our ordinance, it's still a sign.
Mr. Shepherd:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
At our study session, you had some drawings of the building.
Did you bring that with you tonight?
21128
Mr. Shepherd:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
I think it would be a good idea to put it up for the audience so
they can see all those things.
Mr. Shepherd:
This board basically shows what Mark went over, which is the
interior of the pub and how the sealing plan would work out.
These are actual photos of the pub in Newport, Kentucky, that
shows the stone work and the flooring. Our pub is made up of
actually four different rooms: the Gothic room, the Claddagh
Room, the Nautical Room and the Library. That's what these
photos show. Again, these are actual photos, and some of our
architect's renditions of some of the materials and landscape
and some of the color schemes that we use on the exterior.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
How long is the bar and how many seats will be at the bar?
Mr. Shepherd:
Actually, this is a bar that's in the shape of a boat that we don't
do anymore. It's about 18 to 20 feet, and I think there's 15
seats at it.
Mr. LaPine:
Is that basically the way the interior of the restaurant is going to
look?
Mr. Shepherd:
This room we still use. It's called the Gothic room, and it's stone
and decorative iron. This again, is the nautical bar, which we
don't use anymore. This is the library or the Dublin room, and it
represents about 30% of what the interior of the pub looks like.
Ms. Smiley:
I was just wondering. This is a chain. Where are your other
restaurants?
Mr. Shepherd:
Well, we're not a chain, but we have nine pubs open right now.
We have two in Ohio, we in Kentucky, two in Indiana, one in
Lansing, Michigan, one in Chicago, and one that will open in a
month in Madison, Wisconsin.
Ms. Smiley:
Would the one in Lansing be similar to what we could expect in
Livonia?
Mr. Shepherd:
This is a free-standing pub. The one in Lansing is on an end -
cap at a lifestyle center.
21129
Ms. Smiley:
How about the one in Chicago? Is that free-standing?
Mr. Shepherd:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
What's going to replace the bar that's in the shape of boat?
Mr. Shepherd:
We don't do two bars in the pub anymore. We just have one
central bar that's located in the middle of the pub.
Mr. Shane:
Before the meeting, Mr. Morrow and I were discussing the
matter of the number of employees. How many employees will
you have at any one lime?
Mr. Shepherd:
Anywhere from 25 to 35.
Mr. Shane:
Your developers parking analysis here shows 10 employees.
We thought that might be a little low.
Mr. Shepherd:
Right. There will probably be 20 to 25 to 30 at a time.
Mr. LaPine:
When you say 25 to 30 employees, is that per shift or for how
many hours you're open?
Mr. Shepherd:
That's probably per shift, give or lake four or five.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think this is the first project we've ever had where we've had a
walk -over bridge. What is the safety criteria when they build this
bridge? What's it made out of and what weight can it withstand
with people walking on it? Could you give us information on
that?
Mr. Shepherd:
I haven't been involved in the design or the engineering part of
this.
Mr. Alanskas:
Can anybody answer that question?
Mr. Wineman:
Yes, sir. The bridge itself will be steel in structure, wood
planked. Its capacity in terms of the specific load bearing, I
don't know, but we can certainly get that information to Mr.
Taormina for you, but it has been engineered as a pedestrian
bridge only.
Mr. Alanskas:
So there would be no swaying of the bridge. You say it's out of
concrete?
Mr. Wineman:
That's correct.
21130
Mr.
Alanskas:
There would be no swaying?
Mr.
Wineman:
Thats correct.
Mr.
Morrow:
Sir, I notice on this plan that the proposed bank has been
exempted for any type of parking. Was there a reason for that?
Mr.
Shepherd:
The bank itself, that pad site, we feel needs to be on a stand-
alone basis. So the parking that's been provided for it, which I
believe is 35 spaces ...
Mr.
Morrow:
Well, I was curious because that seemed to me even in closer
proximity to some of the other parking there, but you want to
exempt that from the parking requirement?
Mr.
Shepherd:
We're looking at that on a stand-alone basis. Correct.
Mr.
Alanskas:
With 315 seats, you're going to have how many valet parking
spaces? Forty-four parking spaces?
Mr.
Shepherd:
Correct.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Will that be enough for that amount of seats?
Mr.
Shepherd:
We believe that it is.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Okay. Also on the 69 spaces in Building B, how far away is that
from the restaurant?
Mr.
Shepherd:
From the rear of the restaurant, which will probably be for
employee parking, that should be noted as well, the 69 spaces.
Mr.
Alanskas:
But you said you only had 20 employees.
Mr.
Shepherd:
Well, its not only going to serve this establishment, but it will
also serve the other two establishments to the south.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Forthe people thatwork there?
Mr.
Shepherd:
Correct.
Mr.
Alanskas:
I see. All right. Thank you. Would you go over the building
materials please?
Mr.
Shepherd:
Certainly.
21131
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Alanskas, if I can answer your question relative to the
distance between the restaurant and those 69 parking spaces,
its approximately 300 feet from the back of the restaurant to
what would be the westerly portion of that parking lot. So it is
within 300 feet, which is a generally accepted distance for
separation between the furthest parking spaces and the use.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. Shepherd:
These four renditions from the architect show the various
elevations of the pub. This is the entryway. Again, I think
someone alluded to, there will be a few different products used
on the exterior. The two main ones are stone and wood. Slone
is on the tower and here on the entryway. Then in various
places around the building interfaced with the EIFS will be stone
as well.
Mr. Alanskas:
And that is what you had this evening on the board for the
stone?
Mr. Shepherd:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
And that will, of course, be cemented onto the walls, naturally.
What kind of paint are you going to put on the wood? Will it be
a flat latex?
Mr. Shepherd:
It will be a glossy black.
Mr. Alanskas:
And roughly, what is the wear and tear? How long will it last
before it has to be repainted again?
Mr. Shepherd:
Actually, we've changed. We used to use a marine gray wood
on the exterior. This material right now is a plastic composite.
And I thought the architect was going to have a chance to gel it
to you before I got here, but they didn't.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is it pretty well waterproof?
Mr. Shepherd:
Oh, yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you won't have any warping?
Mr. Shepherd:
No. None at all. The pubs in Indianapolis and Newport -we
used the marine gray plywood there. Those pubs have been
open two and half years and there's no signs of having to
21132
repaint them yet. I think I forgot one of the pubs. When we
went to Minneapolis, Minnesota, we started with this product
and it's held up verywell.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any more questions for the petitioner? Hearing none,
we'll now go to the floor. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'll
close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#03-37-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 23, 2004, on
Petition 2004-02-02-05 submitted by Claddagh Irish Pub
requesting waiver use approval to construct a full-service free-
standing restaurant at 17800 Haggerty Road located on the east
side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2004-02-02-05 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A1.0 prepared by
Kinzelman Kline Gossman, dated March 16, 2004, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L1.0 prepared by
Kinzelman Kline Gossman, dated March 16, 2004, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers shall be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanenfly maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A3.0
prepared by Kinzelman Kline Gossman, dated March 16,
2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the maximum number of interior customer seals shall
not exceed 315, including 243 interior seats and 72 exterior
patio seats;
21133
7. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and
shall not exceed a maximum height of 20 feel above grade;
8. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be submitted, together
with the sign plans of the other two restaurants, for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
9. That the petitioner shall comply with the stipulation in the
correspondence dated March 2, 2004, from the Livonia
Inspection Department which suggests that the barrier free
parking be shifted to the north to be the closest parking to
the entrance and that there be a blue marked crossing
aisle from the barrier free parking to the dedicated ramp;
10. That the petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed
in the correspondence dated March 2, 2004, from the
Livonia Fire and Rescue Division of the Department of
Public Safety;
If subject building(s) are to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feel and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connection;
Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 45 feet
wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-%
feet;
Hydrant spacing in the commercial/retail groupings
shall be consistent with the City of Livonia Ordinances;
and
11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
21134
forth in Sections 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. Alanskas: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, originally parking was seen at this site as a real
potential problem. Al this juncture, I really have no strong
objections with the parking numbers that have been submitted
for the three restaurants. However, I may add that requiring one
space per two seats in the patio area is, in my opinion, very
unrealistic. These seats at most will be occupied less than 50
percent of the time, and I propose a more realistic number
would be about one parking space for three people. There's
really only about four months where these patios can really be
used. Using the one perlhree, Mr. Chairman, this would lessen
the requirement by 40, put 409 at the base and 80 needed for
the patio areas. This would add up to 489 parking sites
required. Adding to the base of 409 and utilizing the self -parks
and valet parking at Marketplace, I dont see any problems with
the spaces submitted, and actually I think they'd be in
compliance.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Pieroecchi, but I think you're going to be
surprised that in the summer months, these Irish pubs are
gelling very popular, and these patios with good weather are
really, really used. So I thank you for your information though.
Will the secretary please call the roll on the approving
resolution?
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, La Pine, Shane, Morrow, Smiley,
Alanskas
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh
ABSENT: None
21135
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Will the secretary please note that our
Chairman is coming back at 8:45 p.m.
ITEM #4 PETITION 200402-02-06 GLEN EDEN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
02-02-06, submitted by Glen Eden Lutheran Memorial Park
requesting waiver use approval to construct a mausoleum at
35667 Eight Mile Road located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Ellen Road and Newburgh Road in the Northeast
114 of Section 5.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 24, 2004, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description is
correct and no additional right-of-way dedication is required at
this time." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated March 1, 2004, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct a mausoleum on property located at the
above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulation: If subject building is to
be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall
be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire
Department connection." The letter is signed by Randall D.
Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated March 4, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal by Glen Eden
Lutheran Memorial Park to construct a mausoleum. We have
no rec*mmendations regarding this request" The letter is
signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 27,
2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
February 23, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been
21136
reviewed. This Department has no objections to the petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
Hearing none, would the petitioner please step forward.
Lawrence Sloan, 40 Folmsby Drive, Albany, New York. Good evening. I'm a
consultant to the cemetery.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you for being here. Is there anything you'd like to add to
the presentation?
Mr. Sloan:
I would just say that it's been eight years since the cemetery
build its last addition to the existing mausoleum. We're now
moving across the street, and this plan, as we've submitted it, is
intended to have a similar timeframe in terms of meeting our
inventory requirements of approximately eight years. We feel
that the building is very well designed for our use, and we hope
that you can act favorably on it this evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
You've been very busy people in the last eight months, a
subdivision, now a mausoleum.
Mr. Sloan:
We're trying.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any more future projects that we can know about that
may be coming forth for us, because I'm still getting phone calls
about the subdivision, so we're not in the dark as to what's
going on?
Mr. Sloan:
Hopefully, we will have additional mausoleums in the future, but
not in the near future. We have no other plans at this time to
come back to Planning. I'm gelling to know you all well.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Do you have experience with the dryvit material in any of your
other mausoleums in similar geographic areas as far as the
weather is concerned?
Mr. Sloan:
I think there are a couple responses that you need to
understand as to why we decided to do this. The way this
building is positioned in the site, we could expand it in three
21137
directions without building a new separate building. And so to
give my clienllhe maximum opportunity orflexibility, ratherlhan
cladding the building entirely in stone, we fell if we use this
material - of course, we'd have to come back to you to do this
in eight or len years. Without a crystal ball, we may wanttojusl
expand the building rather than building an entirely new
structure. So that's a key component in why we're making this
decision. The second element that I think you need to be aware
of is that the cemetery will set aside a percentage of the
purchase price of every space in the building into our
endowment fund. And over the next seven or eight years, this
will place an additional $600,000 in the cemetery's endowment
fund, and that fund is there, the income of which is to be used
for the maintenance of the building. We feel that the dryvit
material will have a greater life than the roof of the building. So
we know there's going to be maintenance. I know Mr. Taormina
said the stone is maintenance free, butthat has a metal hanging
system, and someday that's going to have to be repaired and
re -pointed and reset as well. So we recognize that nothing is
maintenance free. We're going to replace carpels. We're going
to replace windows. These things we have to do, and that's
why we have an endowment fund set aside for it. So we feel
comfortable with it. The architectural firm that designed the
building is based in Dallas. They are national in their scope,
and I think clearly the leading firm in mausoleum design in the
United States. We used this material throughout the United
Slates, including the northern states.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much for that explanation
Mr. Piercecchi: I have a comment here. If you recall, at our study meeting we
questioned the permanence of some of the exterior finish
materials, in particular the dryvit, which is proposed over a
significant portion of the new mausoleum. Inspection of the
existing mausoleum reveals that its exterior consists entirely of
stone and marble. Why not repeat those?
Mr. Sloan: As I said, we want to be able to have the flexibility of expanding
this building. The building that exists there today has been
done in three phases. So we feel that may occur again. And
rather than cladding the initial structure in stone now, we'd like
to have the option of having the dryvit and removing it more
easily as we expand the building in the future, really in the next
three decades. So we feel its a good cost effective way to go
for the client at this point, and it is sufficiently permanent. It has
an anticipated 25 year life with our endowment fund to fund any
21138
replacement or repairs that are necessary over that time. Glen
Eden has been an awarding winning recipient of the Eight Mile
frontage competition for all of Eight Mile Road. I think we do a
very good job of maintaining our facility, and we're going to do
that with this building as well.
Mr. Piercecchi:
From your remarks, you acknowledge that with the materials
you're using right now, it will not be as permanent as the other
mausoleum.
Mr. Sloan:
They're not stone.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, why can't you expand it if you make it with the same
material? Maybe you won't expand it.
Mr. Sloan:
And someone at some point may want, when they need to
repair or replace the dryvit, they may want to clad it in stone.
We're leaving that option open as we proceed. It's a very good
material and it's very permanent. It's not going to fall apart.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We're well acquainted with dryvil here and the coatings thatgo
on d. Frankly, we never did like dryvil where it makes contact
with theground.
Mr. Sloan:
Well, this doesn't. There is a 30 inch granite stone veneer at
the base of the building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But the rest of it is all dryvil?
Mr. Sloan:
Cored.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Doug Barr, 20379 Wayne, Livonia, Michigan. My property backs up to the
cemetery, and my concern is the light pollution from the
cemetery. When they built the building up front, they put a light
fixture in. I'm a little over a quarter mile from that building and it
reflects and puts shadows on the wall of my home. Its that
bright. The mausoleum that they put up does the same thing.
So I'm concerned. This building will be closer to my properly
than the current structures that are causing problems, so that's
really what my concern is. I really dont understand why there
has to be light over there. The lights are on until midnight, then
they go off, and they're off until 5:00 in the morning. So I really
21139
don't understand why we need to have lights there in the
evening at all.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, if you don't mind, I'm going to ask the petitioner to come up.
If you could tell us what the intended lighting is for the building,
that would be helpful.
Mr. Sloan:
Currently, there's no additional exterior lighting in the plan. We
can look at this. We didn't realize this problem existed.
Mr. Walsh:
Just out of curiosity, since we're here, is there any need for the
lights to be on until midnight?
Mr. Sloan:
Its intended as a security lighting kind of thing. We just didn't
know it was a problem for anybody.
Mr. Barr:
They trained the intruders to come after midnight and before five
in the morning.
Mr. Walsh:
What I'm going to suggest then, if you don't mind speaking after
the meeting, if you can lake a few minutes to address the
current problem, and then we're going to expect there will be no
additional lighting on the new building.
Mr. Sloan:
Sure. Okay.
Dennis Behrendsen, 20012 Wayne, Livonia, Michigan. I'm representing the Deer
Creek Homeowners Association. I wailed to see if any other of
the members of the Association were going to speak. I was not
aware that Mr. Barrs house, and certainly his neighbors, were
affected by this light situation. I would like to point out that no
other members of the Association contacted me. But knowing
Mr. Barr's concern, I would like to support him in his need to
address this problem. That's my only comment. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any comments or questions from the Commissioners
or from the audience? Does the petitioner wish to make any
other statements this evening?
Mr. Sloan:
Just to thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing. A
motion is in order.
21140
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Pieroecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#03-38-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 23, 2004, on
Petition 2004-02-02-06 submitted by Glen Eden Lutheran
Memorial Park requesting waiver use approval to construct a
mausoleum at 35667 Eight Mile Road located on the south side
of Eight Mile Road between Ellen Road and Newburgh Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 5, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-02-02-
06 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated February 19,
2004, prepared by J. Stuart Todd, Inc., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 2 dated February
19, 2004, prepared by J. Stuart Todd, Inc., is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. Thalthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the lop leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. Thatthe Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets 4
and 5, both dated February 19, 2004, prepared by J. Stuart
Todd, Inc., are hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except that only masonry type building materials that
match that of the existing mausoleum shall be used in the
construction;
7. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
21141
8. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
9. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition;
10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
11. That there shall be no additional outside lighting on the
new mausoleum.
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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: Just a point of information. Condition No. 6 is going to upset the
petitioner a little bit. I just want to make it clear to him that with
respect to the type of material that the Commission would like to
see on the building, you have the option of appealing that
particular condition to City Council because it would require you
to use the same type of materials that are on the existing
mausoleum, and that isn't what you want to do. I just want to
make it clear to you, if you choose to stay with your present
plan, you'll have to appeal that particular condition to the City
Council.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 200402-02-07 DUNKIN' DONUTS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
02-02-07 submitted by Jeffery A. Scott Architects, on behalf of
Dunkin' Donuts/Baskin Robbins, requesting waiver use approval
to construct additions and renovate the exterior of the existing
limited service restaurant building at 27609 Plymouth Road,
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Cavell
Avenue and Arcola Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36.
21142
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 24, 2004, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. No additional right-of--
way dedication is required at this time." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 22, 2004,
which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition
onto an existing limited service restaurant building on property
located at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal" The letter is signed by Randall D.
Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated March 4, 2004, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to construct an
addition to the existing limited service restaurant building. We
have no objections to the plans as submitted. Stop signs should
be installed at each exit of the property and handicap spaces
should be property signed." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 4, 2004, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 23, 2004, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This site has an existing nonconforming pole sign. (2)
The right-of-way is in poor repair by the west drive along Cavell.
The drive appears too small. The 'No Left Tum'sign is missing.
(3) The alley is unpaved and in poor repair. Only the west one-
third has pavement. (4) The rear door exit discharge area must
be repaved, leveled and discharge lighted. (5) The gas meter
and piping is exposed and requires steel bollard protection or
other acceptable means. (6) The frieze board in the rear is in
poor repair. It needs to be repaired or replaced and repainted.
(7) The rear block wall needs maintenance and repainting. (8)
The parking lot needs maintenance, repair, resealing, restriping
and in certain areas repaving. (9) There are exposed neon
lights under the east soffit. (10) Landscaping is proposed to be
removed and not replaced from the west building area. (11)
There is wood fencing without landscaping at the south border
of the alley. (12) The front exterior addition wall has an E.I.F.S.
system proposed down to grade and along the sidewalk where it
21143
could incur damage. 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. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Is
the petitioner here this evening?
Marsha Buticovich, Jeffery A. Scott Architects, 32316 Grand River, Farmington
Hills, Michigan 48336. As Mr. Taormina pointed out, this is a
complete face lift for the existing, rather tired looking Dunkin'
Donuts that's been that way for quite some time. Dunkin'
Donuts corporately is trying to gel rid of the existing but -like
buildings that they have cunenlly. They're trying to go to a new,
updated look, and with that, they're trying to bring in Baskin
Robbins, which falls under their large umbrella of the brands
that tie parent company, Allied Domecq, owns. In doing that
and trying to make this a more community -friendly site, we'd like
to try and bang in Baskin Robbins, and by doing that, we
needed to make a few additions. As Mr. Taormina said, our
largest addition is to the west, which I believe is about 14 feet,
and it runs the entire length of the building. By doing that, we
move the dumpster from its existing location and move it to the
west by two parking spaces. The site as it stands nghl now is
over -parked for what the existing sealing is on the inside. Even
when we go to the additional seats at 22, originally on our plan
we had 19 spaces, and then after working with Planning and
from your comments from the study meeting, Mr. Taormina
asked if we could get additional landscaping and that's what you
see here on this revised plan. We tried to landscape behind the
dumpster as much as possible to try to soften that area, and
also the Magic Pan restaurant to the east, we've tried to bang in
some landscaping along their dumpster as well to try to dress
up around, you know, some foundation plantings around the
Dunkin' Donuts building. Al the suggestion of Mr. Bishop in his
letter, we have gone with the masonry base along the entirety of
the front facade of the building, and as Mr. Taormina staled, it
will be EIFS canopy facing that would go over the existing
mansard. This is a much nicer look than what's there now. The
mansards, they gel tired and they have to be painted quite
frequently. This is the Dunkin' Donuts that you'll see a lot of in
the area that look similar to this. If I can answer any questions, I
would be glad to.
Mr. Wash: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
21144
Mr. LaPine:
Just one question. The Dunkin' Donuts that was renovated in
the last year and a half on Middlebell near Seven Mile Road
doesn't have a Baskin Robbins. Its
just a donut shop. Is that
basically what this building will look like?
Ms. Buticovich:
Actually, I have Ted Zuchlewski here. He's the construction
manager for Allied Domecq. I'm sure that was probably one of
his projects there.
Mr. LaPine:
I dont think so. I think Pastor Construction Company renovated
that building.
Ms. Buticovich:
Right.
Ted Zuchlewski,
Allied Domecq, 40827 Village Wood, Novi, Michigan. That
building on Seven Mile is all EIFS except for, I think, the back of
it which is painted block. This building here will have block on
the bottom to protect the EIFS, so it's probably 35% - 40%
block, and then just the upper parts are EIFS.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Do I understand you, sir, then that the dryvd that was mentioned
in the Inspection Report, which goes down to the sidewalk, that
is going to be remedied?
Mr. Zuchlewski:
At the current building on Seven Mile?
Mr. Piercecchi:
No, no. We're talking about this building.
Mr. Zuchlewski:
I wasn't sure. This particular building shows that we have
masonry all the way down to the sidewalk.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So that will be removed? When you say masonry, instead of
dryvil, masonry?
Ms. Buticovich:
Your speaking to Mr. Bishop's item?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yes. Item No. 12.
Ms. Buticovich:
Item No. 12. Yes, and that's when we came back with that
revised area that Mr. Taormina is pointing to right now. Yes, his
comment to that has been remedied.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I haven't seen the revised plan.
21145
Mr. Alanskas:
Its right here on the screen.
Ms. Buticovich:
I believe it's in the package.
Mr. Alanskas:
Baskin Robbins stores - are they open in the wintertime or just
the summer months?
Ms. Buticovich:
They are open year around.
Mr. Alanskas:
They're open all year round?
Ms. Buticovich:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Good, we need a good ice cream pador on that side of town.
Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
You're going to more like a coffee shop kind of athing? I've
been watching your marketing lately.
Mr. Zuchlewski:
Yes, more cappuccino and expresso drinks and that sort of
thing. We're trying to get closer to, I dont want to say names,
but there's the upscale coffee shops that are becoming more
and more popular and what have you. So we're trying to go
after some of that business, but we're trying to keep our prices
down. I think there's been a couple articles in the paper
recently where the other places are charging $3 or $4 dollars for
the same drink, and we're like $1.50, $1.60. But the buildings,
too, in the Detroit metro market. We're looking to do 100 new
stores and clean up a lot of the old tired stores that have been
around for a while. It's a great marketplace and we think we
can help everybody by improving the looks of the store and
ourselves.
Ms. Smiley;
I want to compliment you on that. It's a vast improvement. I
was out to the site and I'm very excited.
Mr. LaPine:
The 100 stores you're going to build in the metropolitan area - I
dont know if any more are going to be built in Livonia. Will they
all be Baskin Robbins?
Mr. Zuchlewski:
They are going to be co -branded. That's one of the things that
Dunkin' is looking at. We've owned Baskin Robbins for about
10 - 12 years, and we've tried an additional sandwich shop.
We've done a couple in Southfield. They're called Togo's.
Togo's is out of California. So we're looking at a breakfast,
lunch and a dinner in the day part, and the evening seems to be
21146
the ice cream. So we're looking for a sandwich shop of some
kind. We would like to take and have larger sites, better
parking, and utilize the building full time during the day instead
of just donuts in the morning sort of thing or ice cream in the
evening.
Mr. LaPine: One comment. Don't eliminate your little thing at the Lion's
game. I like Dunkin' Donuts. That little race.
Mr. Zuchlewski: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Please have sugar -free ice cream for diabetics in your store -
Baskin Robbins.
Mr. Walsh: You have two votes for that.
dirW4M11WIM71W@'G
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Robert Bleana, 11564 Cavell, Livonia, Michigan. I'm the property directly behind
Dunkin' Donuts on the other side of the alley from them. First of
all, I see that great big banana split in front of me loo. I'm all for
ice cream. Really, I'm just questioning whether or not this is the
best place for a Baskin Robbins. Already, their parking is
maxed out - Dunkin' Donuts - 24R. In the morning, we've been
stuck in our driveway. Couldn't even get out because of all the
trucks and vehicles parked in Cavell because there's not room
to pull a big utility truck into their parking lot. So we've got city
trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, anything bigger than a car
is going to park out on Cavell and run in to gel their coffee and
donuts. So I feel like they're already spilling over into the
residential area as they are right now. They added a driveway
over onto that side leading right directly to Cavell. I don't
remember getting notice on that move. But I think that went
further to combine that commercialism with Cavell, which I see
as a residential street. So I wasn't really happy with that. The
driveway to Cavell was already added. They even have parking
in the alley behind there. Cars pull into the alley and park and
run in and get a coffee or a donut real quick. And I heard you
mentioned that right now they've only got 7% landscaping in the
front of their place. And I am all for the Plymouth Road
beautification project that's been going on the last few years.
You guys have done a wonderful job, and I really see like
they're deficient in that already. If they want to add 500 square
21147
feel of something to the front of their place, I say instead of
adding building, Tel's add some more landscaping and get that
7% figure back up to a conforming 15%. Also, in the past we've
had some loitering troubles with the tattoo parlor across the
street. I know the little party store over there wanted to get a
liquor license, and they were declined because of the loitering
that goes on at the tattoo parlor. I can see an ice cream shop,
and this is really just going to add perhaps more loitering to that
area right there. And with the motel next door, the tattoo parlor
across the street, I don't know if that's just a great idea or not to
add that. I was hoping you guys would give that some
consideration before you went ahead with this proposal. They
mentioned that it was donuts early in the morning. I'd like to
suggest that their business seems to be 24/7. They're busy at
night; they're busy in the morning. I don't see it as a periodic
business. I see it as an all day event. I live next door to them
and that's what I see. Also with their garbage ... you know I've
been next to Dunkin' Donuts now for over 10 years and they
have yet to win me over as being a neighbor, win me over as to
their neighborliness and their ability to be a good neighbor. I'm
over there begging them all the time, please pick up some
garage, please pick up the alley, please lake care of your place,
please police your parking area. I'm afraid I pick up more
Dunkin' Donut's garbage right now than they do. I just see this
as going to be exacerbating that problem. Right now Dunkin'
Donuts sells everything in a box, a cup, a bag with a napkin.
And that's what I pick up all over the street out there on Cavell -
boxes, bags, cups and napkins. And now you're going to add a
Baskin Robbins which would add more napkins, cups, bags,
spoons. It's a completely disposable type of sale that going on
there now and that's what they're going to increase, and I just
see that as more problems. There little dumpster area right now
is maxed out again as I say for the business that there's now.
They're not going to be able to squeeze all the Baskin Robbins
mess in there also and police that area picking up all this
additional garbage and getting it in a dumpster. They haven't
been able to do it in 10 years. I don't think they're going to be
able to do it ever. I think they've got their hands full with what
they've got right now. From what I've seen with their parking,
giving up 500 square feel of that to building space has got to be
out of the question. I don't see how they can possible do it.
You count the seats inside the restaurant; I don't think that
clearly reflects their business. They've got a line of people up to
the door everyday. They're not silting down, but they came in a
car. To count the seals and say that they've got adequate
parking with 17 spaces, I say no. It's grossly undersized and
21148
with this proposal, to add another full business to this location
just doesn't make sense to me at all. I've looked up and down
Plymouth Road there. We've got lot of vacant properties up and
down Plymouth that are open for lease. There are individual
commercial fronts with large parking areas and large dumpster
areas to accommodate a business. I just feel like the Dunkin'
Donuts area right there is already maxed out for it, and to add
another business to that same space, the same parking lot just
doesn't make sense to me. And they mention some foliage that
they've added. You know, unless it's tall evergreens to hide that
thing, whatever they've got planned there in their little drawing,
this doesn't do it to me. As I said, they're already undersized for
the area they've designated for landscaping, and I just don't
want to see more building, more parking, more mess. They're
already, as far as I'm concerned, one of the eyesores of the
street right through there. And that's just how I feel about it.
Again, I'm anxious to get in line for that hot fudge sundae also,
but I just don't think that this is the right place to put a Baskin
Robbins. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, has the alley behind the store been vacated?
Mr. Taormina:
That is a public alley.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the petitioner.
Mr. Walsh:
Yes, Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would the petitioner please come forward, ma'm? Could you
tell me what kind of a maintenance schedule you have at your
stores fortaking care of refuse and cleaning up?
Mr. Zuchlewski:
This is really a surprise to me because this franchisee, he's got
another location over at 10 Mile and Haggerty in Novi and its
impeccable. So I personally will go talk to him, and I'll drive by a
couple limes to make sure. But this is the first time hearing that
there's been any issues.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because usually in a donut shop, you have people at the
counter delivering donuts and coffee,
and you have no one
there to pick up the refuse.
Mr. Zuchlewski:
Well, we do have in their schedule of how they work and how
they manage the people. We have a saying. It's taken from the
21149
military. If you have time to lean, you have time to clean. So, if
they're
not making coffee or waiting on customers, they're
wiping
tables and policing the areas and what have you. So
we've got, as a corporate standpoint, we're very strict on it and
we're very cognizant of the fact of curb appeal, and we want
everything to look nice and clean. So I personally will take it
upon myself to make sure that ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Now when you say "curb appeal," you're talking about the front
of the building. How about the back of the building where it's
not seen, but the neighbors see R.
Mr. Zuchlewski:
No, I understand. The few limes that I've been out there myself
to meet with the architect and walk the site and what have you, I
haven't seen any of these things that I'm hearing today.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Question number two, is how many times a week do you
have your dumpster emptied? Once a week? Twice a week?
Three times a week?
Mr. Zuchlewski:
I think its on an "as needed" basis. And I personally do not
know, but I will find out. I mean, that is just one of the quality
service and cleanliness type of things that we address all the
time. Again, I'm really shocked to even hear that there is an
issue at this location.
Mr. Alanskas:
You know as well as I do that in the summertime when these
kids come for ice cream, they're going to be outside with their
cups and sluff. They're young kids; they're going to throw trash.
So they do have to be cleaned.
Mr. Zuchlewski:
That I understand, but they're supposed to be out policing the
store several limes during the day. You know, again, I would
like to say that I know exactly, but I don't want to say something
that I'm not sure of, but I will look into it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, you've heard his concern. I hope you can take care oflhal
for him.
Mr. Zuchlewski:
I do. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow:
I have one more question, sir. Do you have any outside trash
containers?
Mr. Zuchlewski:
Outside the store, we have a couple dumpslers as you walk
inside -the little swinging trash cans, the masonry kind.
21150
Mr. Morrow:
Thats what I wondered.
Mr. Zuchlewski:
We have those. We also have the butt cans that everybody
has. I mean those are usually emptied three or four limes a
day, again, as needed.
Mr. Morrow:
So there are some outside for disposal?
Mr. Zuchlewski:
Always. Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Your Dunkin' Donuts on Eight Mile and Grand River - I think
there is a Baskin Robbins in that one.
Mr. Zuchlewski:
Yes, it is.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't think its in Livonia.
Mr. Zuchlewski:
Its Farmington.
Mr. LaPine:
Its Farmington, right. Do you have a drive thru there?
Mr. Zuchlewski:
Yes, we do.
Mr. LaPine:
But you don't have any Dunkin' Donuts in Livonia with a drive-
thru, do you?
Mr. Zuchlewski:
Not yet. We would like very much to. No.
Mr. LaPine:
That's one of the questions I had. I can understand the
frustration the gentleman has that's behind him. Plymouth Road
is a pretty traveled road. People run in there going to the
different businesses around there in the morning, want a cup of
coffee, a donut. I'm only going to be in there a few seconds.
You dont have that problem with the drive-thru, but you couldn't
have a drive-thru here because you dont have enough property
for the slack ups. I was just curious because I know when they
renovated the store in Farmington Hills there on Eight Mile and
Grand River. They put a drive thru in there. Okay. Thank you
Mr. Zuchlewski:
I really appreciate all the comments, especially from the
neighbor about the cleanliness from the outside. Unless we
know, we really can't do anything about it, but we'll be very
watchful of this particular location. He's a great franchisee and
he's a good businessman, so I don't know why he wouldn't be
laking care of it, but we will police it for him. Thank you
21151
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments from the commissioners,
audience or petitioner? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-39-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 23, 2004, on
Petition 2004-02-02-07 submitted by Jeffery A. Scott Architects,
on behalf of Dunkin' Donuts/Baskin Robbins, requesting waiver
use approval to construct additions and renovate the exterior of
the existing limited service restaurant building at 27609
Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Cavell Avenue and Arcola Avenue in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 36, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-02-02-07 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP -1 dated March 19,
2004, as revised, prepared by Jeffery A. Scott Architects, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated March
19, 2004, as revised, prepared by Jeffery A. Scott
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. Thatthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-7
dated March 19, 2004, as revised, prepared by Jeffery A.
Scott Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick, or in the case a precast concrete system is
used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
21152
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building, and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all limes;
10. 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 properly lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated March 4, 2004:
That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed
and doubled striped;
That the rear door exit discharge area shall be leveled,
paved and property lighted;
That any exposed meters and piping on the exterior of
the building be properly protected with steel bollards or
other means acceptable to the Inspection Department;
12. Thatthe wall and ground signs as shown on the referenced
plans are hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
provided that any reference to a drive-lhru on the
monument sign is eliminated and subject to the Petitioner
being granted a variance in the required len (10) fool
setback from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any additional
signs shall be separately submitted for review and approval
by the Planning Commission and City Council;
13. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
21153
14. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 200402-02-08 OUTBACK
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
02-02-08, submitted by Out Back of Michigan requesting waiver
use approval to construct an outdoor sales and display area to
accommodate children's playcenlers, custom outbuildings and
basketball goals at 33239 Eight Mile Road located on the south
side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 26, 2004, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. No addi#ona/ right-of-
way dedication is required at this time. The subdivision name in
the legal description should be Folker's Farmington Acres. The
lot widths shown on the sketch are incorrect. Lot 12 is 88.90 feet
wide and lots 13 through 16 are 87.12 feet wide. This would
make the waiver use area under this petition 174.24 feet wide
rather than the 180 feet indicated." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second le8er is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 1, 2004, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connec#on with a request to construct an outdoor
display on property located at the above referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal." The le8er is signed by
Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated March 4, 2004, which reads as follows:
21154
"We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to
construct an outdoor display area. We recommend that
adequate lighting be considered as well as signs on the fence to
discourage unauthorized entry and use of the displays." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter 6 from the Inspection Department, dated March
4, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
February 25, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This plan is lacking
sufficient detail for a comprehensive review. (a) How will the
area be accessed? (b) What type and how many
ingressregress gates? (c) What will be done with the piles of
rubbish and debris in at least three different locations on the
property? (d) Is the fencing in existence to be changed, partially
changed and/or modified? What type of fencing is proposed?
(e) What is to be done with the sign advertising roses, made out
of concrete blocks and wood? (f) Is this to be a permanent
display? (g) Is the vacant lot to the east part of this and will it be
utilized for access? (2) There is no parking lot striping or
designations. (3) The front driveway is gravel. (4) The facade,
wood facing, currently purple on the main building, is rotting and
in great disrepair, missing pieces, etc. It needs to be replaced.
(5) There is at least one broken glass pane on the building. (6)
The greenhouse is in poor repair, plastic covering is tom, with
clutter and disarray in that area. (7) The landscaping is in
disrepair and needs maintenance. (8) We would recommend
that detailed plans be resubmitted for review. (9) 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. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
Would the petitioner please approach the podium?
Dan Hart, Out Back of Michigan, 4050 West River Drive, Comstock Park,
Michigan 49321. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far?
Mr. Hart: Basically, our business is seasonal from spring to fall. We plan
to sell and install and deliver the children's play sets, the
basketball equipment and storage buildings. The displays will
be sold off at the end of the season, and we will shut down for
the winter months and reopen in the spring.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
21155
Mr. LaPine:
You're representing the petitioner that wants to go in there and
open up this business. Is that correct? Is the owner of the
property here?
Mr. Hart:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
There isn't much we can do here. You read all the violations
he's got here. I dont understand why she didn't show up.
Mr. Hart:
Yeah, I'm not sure. It's our intent to cleanup the area, cleanup
all the debris inside their existing fenced area and outside of the
area and maintain the area for the entire site.
Mr. LaPine:
So you're going to be responsible for cleaning up her mess?
Mr. Hart:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
How about the sign that's out on Eight Mile Road that's made
out of blocks and stuff? Is that going to go?
Mr. Hart:
I'm willing to consider that. In talking with the owners of the
property, I think they would agree if I were to lake care of it that
we could possible gel a new sign out there.
Mr. LaPine:
On the far south side of the property, there's an old trailer back
there, which is on her property. Are you going to remove all
that? All that's going to be removed?
Mr. Hart:
Yeah. I'm willing to clean up the entire site to make it
presentable for our customers as well as theirs and for the City.
Ms. Smiley:
Are you then going to lease the property from spring to fall?
Mr. Hart:
Correct.
Ms. Smiley:
And then you're all done there.
Mr. Hart:
Right.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, that facility has been in disarray for years. I don't think
those windows in the entire complex have ever been cleaned.
And as you heard, the front of the building where it's purple, it's
all rotted. Are you going to remodel the building, which by the
way is what we're saying needs to be done?
21156
Mr. Hart:
Yes. I agree.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, you're gong to rebuild or yes you agree?
Mr. Hart:
I agree with what you're saying. It is in disrepair.
Mr. Alanskas:
But what's going to be done about it?
Mr. Hart:
Well, I can have discussions with the owners of the property and
address those cosmetic concerns and possibly come up with a
plan to replace some of that. But without talking with them, I
can't really say here that I'm going to be responsible for ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, I'm sure this will be tabled, but I think it's very imperative
that the owner of this facility comes the next lime that we have a
meeting with you because there's an awful lot to be done. I'm
sure we're talking a lot of dollars to have it done because it
cannot stay the way it is. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I was going to ask this gentleman, he seems to be very
accommodating here. There is also deficient parking in that
area.
Mr. Hart:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Which needs paving and striped. Were you going to volunteer
to do that too?
Mr. Hart:
Well, I don't know what level I can go to for my display of swing
sets. I would like to clean the site and replace that fence with
something decorative. Without further discussion with the
owner of the property, I can't really say how far I can actually go
myself in repairs to their building and grounds.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You're not surprised tonight if that matter is tabled until all these
deficiencies are remedied?
Mr. Hart:
No. I'm not surprised at all.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm sure you were aware of what you were going to run into
tonight. It would appear that you're merely going to have the
outdoor equipment. It appears you've also made an investment
in some fencing already - fairly substantial. Would that be
correct?
Mr. Hart:
Yes, sir.
21157
Mr. Morrow:
Did you pull a permit to have the fence installed?
Mr. Hart:
I did not. I was unaware. I was more or less told this is the area
that you can display your product, but it does have to be fenced
in.
Mr. Mor ow:
Who told you that?
Mr. Hart:
The property owner.
Mr. Morrow:
I would suspect that your fence company probably knew they
should have pulled a permit. I would offer that to you. But this
site has been an ongoing difficulty with the way its been run
down, and for you to come up here tonight and try to address all
the concerns we have - and mainly the concerns are not with
your particular area. It will probably be very attractive if you get
the waiver approved to sell there, but there's so much more to
be gone through with the site itself. You're certainly in a
dilemma here tonight. There's quite a few dollars needed to
bring it up to what we consider Livonia's standards and to meet
the ordinance. As we've indicated, this will most likely get
tabled. So where we go from there, I think the ball will be back
in her court, or the owners court, and your court to try to work it
out.
Mr. Hart:
Okay.
Mr. Shane: I just want to echo what Mr. Morrow said. The City and this
property owner have been in an adversarial relationship for a
long time. I don't know if you're aware of that or not, but this is
the first lime that I am just a little bit encouraged, and maybe we
can gel on a cooperative basis. I don't know if the same owners
own the property or what, but we need to gel together with them
as well as you. I'm sure they are well aware of it and what we're
going to be looking for. That's probably why they're not here.
Mr. Hart: Yeah, I'm sure they are, and I'm willing to work towards getting
you what you need in terms of appearance out there at that site.
I'll take a look at all of your concerns and talk with the owners,
and see if we can reach an agreement and some kind of
schedule logellhese taken care of.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, if and when this area comes up to speed and meets our
standards, how did you plan on serving the area that you're
going to occupy? Is there going to be a trailer? Are you going
21158
to build a little building on it? How are you going to serve that
area?
Mr. Hart:
Well, with the garden buildings we'll be selling, we would be
able to basically have a sales person on the lot to sell our
products to the customer.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, will he have a place to do business, a little shack or
whatever, or a trailer?
Mr. Hart:
The Village Green. It wouldn't be a trailer. It would be one of
our displays of our custom garden buildings.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It would be a building then?
Mr. Hart:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. That's all I wanted to know.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm just curious. How many different displays are you going to
have? You have a swing set out there now, which you had
there last year. Were you the person that sold this up there last
year?
Mr. Hart:
No, I was not.
Mr. LaPine:
So how many different displays will you have?
Mr. Hart:
There will be approximately 15 in all.
Mr. LaPine:
Fifteen different displays.
Mr. Hart:
Yes, 15 to 20.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm going to be honest with you. I've been on this board for 14
years and I've tangled with the owner of that property for so
many years, and I'm at the point now where I'm not going to
vole for anything until the place is what I consider up to the
standards of Livonia, because you know this is ridiculous.
Some of that garbage in the back has been there for years.
Some of the wood that she uses to put her flats on in the
summer are rotted and I don't know how they stand up. They
put them on blocks. I mean it's ridiculous. And I feel sorry for
you because you want to be there and you're being stuck with
all the additional expense. I don't know anything about your
business, how profitable it is, but let me just ask you one
21159
Mr. Alanskas: What we wanted to do in a tabling mofion, we wanted to table
this to an uncertain date, but we wanted her or you in the
meanfime to clean up the area before we would even consider
bringing it back to us. So that's what we would want done if it's
tabled. I, as one commissioner, would like it to be all cleaned
up, and of course not the building to be remodeled until we talk,
but at least clean up the area so it looks like a business could
be run there. We'll table it to an uncertain date. That's the
motion I would like to make.
Mr. Walsh: Before we make the motion, Mr. Alanskas, if I could lel Mr.
Taormina speak.
Mr. Taormina: I'd just like to point out that both the Planning Department and
the Inspecfion Department have identified a number of issues
involved in this property. We would be more than happy to
meet with the petifioner to go over these items in detail to assist
him and the owner to hopefully address the Commission's
concerns.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, I think that's where I was coming from Mark, that you can
gel together, and then I think ultimately they have to bring back
question. Do you have a one year lease if you get this? Or are
you going to have a long term lease, or how is it going to be
worked out?
Mr. Hart:
It will be a long lens lease. Obviously, if I'm going to invest in
the property, I'm going to want to be there awhile.
Mr. LaPine:
That's what I just wondered. If you have a one year lease, you
clean it all up, and then you're gone. I mean she makes out, the
owners make out like a bandit and your stuck with all the
expenses.
Mr. Hart:
Exactly.
Mr. Walsh:
You certainly have heard all the comments this evening, and I
do not want you to walk away tonight thinking that any one of us
is not welcoming your business. You seem to be incredibly
cooperative. I think once we've handled these issues, we look
forward to working with you. In fad, I'm certain that we will do
what we can to work with you on your own plan to move
forward. But I think that its clear, at some point someone is
going to offer a tabling motion and that will cease our discussion
and really put it back into your hands and the owner's hands.
Mr. Alanskas: What we wanted to do in a tabling mofion, we wanted to table
this to an uncertain date, but we wanted her or you in the
meanfime to clean up the area before we would even consider
bringing it back to us. So that's what we would want done if it's
tabled. I, as one commissioner, would like it to be all cleaned
up, and of course not the building to be remodeled until we talk,
but at least clean up the area so it looks like a business could
be run there. We'll table it to an uncertain date. That's the
motion I would like to make.
Mr. Walsh: Before we make the motion, Mr. Alanskas, if I could lel Mr.
Taormina speak.
Mr. Taormina: I'd just like to point out that both the Planning Department and
the Inspecfion Department have identified a number of issues
involved in this property. We would be more than happy to
meet with the petifioner to go over these items in detail to assist
him and the owner to hopefully address the Commission's
concerns.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, I think that's where I was coming from Mark, that you can
gel together, and then I think ultimately they have to bring back
21160
a plan addressing all the various issues that we can look at and
approve or deny or modify. That's what we're lacking here
today. There's a lot of questions and the plans, as they've said,
are not adequate to make those decisions. So the objective is
to come in with plans addressing the various issues so that it
can go forward with the petition to the next level for the
approval. Do you understand, sir?
Mr.Hart:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
If I could ask just one more question. I know we're getting close
to the season when your sales are important to you. What is
the latest dale that you could open up there and still have a
successful season?
Mr. Hart:
Its kind of upon us right now. Next week we get real busy with
the play centers, especially. With the wanner weather, kids
wants to gel out of the house.
Mr. LaPine:
This isn't a project you're going to do in 30 days, believe me.
There are going to be some time limits. I'm worried about you.
I'd hate to see you gel stuck with something. I hope you haven't
signed a lease yet in case you don't get in here, and then it's loo
late in the season to even open.
Mr. Walsh:
What we'll do is make a commitment to gel you back onto the
agenda as quickly as we feel progress has been made, and we
will rely on our staff to indicate that. Mr. Taormina has already
indicated his willingness to make the staff available to work with
you and the owners. So we are going to try and help you. If
you get this problem resolved, you could be Livonia's first cifizen
next year. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this pefition? Hearing none, a motion is in
order.
Mr. Alanskas:
I would just say Tel's table this to an dale uncertain until we hear
from Mark and the owners about what they want to do, and then
bring it back before us.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0340-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 23, 2004, on
Petition 2004-02-02-08 submitted by Out Back of Michigan
requesting waiver use approval to construct an outdoor sales
and display area to accommodate children's playcenlers,
21161
custom outbuildings and basketball goals at 33239 Eight Mile
Road located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest 114 of
Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that Petition 2004-02-02-08 be tabled to a dale uncertain.
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. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and theforegoing resolution
adopted. This concludes the public hearing portion of this
meeting. We will now proceed with other business. Will the
Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-02-08-05 S&N DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
02-08-05,
00302-08-05, submitted by S & N Development Company
requesting an extension of the site plan, which previously
received approval by the City Council on April 23, 2003 (CR
183-03), in connection with a proposal to construct an office
building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway
in the Southeast'''/ of Section 6.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: I have nothing to add other than say that the site plan is due to
expire, and there have been no material changes to the plan.
The architect, Kevin Biddison, is in the audience if you have any
questions.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Mr. Miller, is there any correspondence for us to
consider this evening?
Mr. Miller: No. There is no new correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina had spoken with Mr. Shamie and indicated that it
was not necessary for him to be here, but we do have the
architect here. Are there any questions for staff or for the
petitioner? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it
was
21162
#0341-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-02-08-05
submitted by S & N Development Company requesting an
extension oflhe site plan, which previously received approval by
the City Council on April 23, 2003 (Council Resolution #183-03),
in connection with a proposal to construct an office building at
37640 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven
Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the
Southeast'''/ of Section 6, be approved.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 880TH Public Hearings &
Regular Meeting
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 880"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on February 24, 2004.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#0342-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 880" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February
24, 2004, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Shane, LaPine, Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Alanskas, Morrow
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 882n° Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 23, 2004, was adjourned at 9:55
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman