HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-10-1221728
MINUTES OF THE 893`d PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 12, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 893 Id 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 Pieroecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Ms. Debra
Waller, Clerk -Typist II; 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 requestfor 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 dale 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.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2004-09-01-10 SIMON & STEIN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-09-
01-10, submitted by Jacalyn Newman Simon and Henry Stein,
requesting to rezone property at 15552 Newburgh, located on
the east side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road and
Ladywood Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 17 from R -2A to
OS.
21729
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. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated September 14, 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 last part of the legal description
for this petition should read Th E 240 ft, Th S 100 it, Th W 240 it
to POB. Additional right -0f --way is not required at this time. Any
proposed drive approach to Newburgh Road will require a
permit frem the City and storm water detention may be required
in accordance with Wayne County's 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 for the Staff before we go to the
petitioner? Seeing none, I'm going to ask if the petitioner could
please come forward to the podium. This evening we will be
asking the petitioner to come to the podium after the Staff has
made its presentation and then we will allow for an opportunity
for the public to speak. As you come to the podium, please
state your name and address for the record.
Marc Daneman, Esq., 6440 E. Fulton Street, Suite 202, Ada, Michigan 48301.
I'm here representing Jacalyn Simon. Unfortunately, she is
unable to be here today. Unfortunately, we had the passing of
Mr. Stein last week, and as a result, Jackie could not make
tonight's meeting. Jackie's husband is here, and I also have
with us tonight Mr. Joseph Durso, who is the reallor who is
familiar with this properly and will make some comments as to
its availability or usability for residential purposes, and the
proposed future owners of the property, Dr. Steven Gluck and
wife, Maria. Dr. Gluck is a dentist and, as indicated, he is
proposing to develop the property. I'll put these plans out here.
I'll talk about these in a moment.
Mr. Walsh: If you would come to this side, Mr. Taormina will put up a tripod.
We have a portable microphone that you can use. This will give
the audience at home an opportunity to see it a little more
effectively.
21730
Mr. Daneman: Briefly, I provided to you a fairly detailed report. I hope you had
the opportunity to look that over. We tried to address the issues
that we raised in the earlier requests as to why we feel it is
appropriate now to have this matter reconsidered for the office
zoning. There is some history. The applicant has had this
properly for about eight years, has attempted to try to use it in a
residential purpose. Two years ago, he began talking seriously
about developing it on an office basis and approached you at
that time to have it rezoned. It was denied at that point. I think
part of the reason for the denial was, in addition to our use,
there had been activities on the adjacent properties that had
upset the neighborhood, and reasonably I think, had raised
some questions as to what the future use of the property could
be. I'm offering to you tonight an office use, which is not too
dissimilar from the prior one, although it will be a smaller
building proposed, and we are willing to submit our development
proposal to a development agreement, through site plan
approval or the rezoning that would lock that in so there would
be assurance as to what kind of use would be there ultimately
and hopefully alleviate some of those concerns that were raised
at the earlier meeting. As Mark had indicated what the
surrounding uses are, we feel that this office use really would be
a transitional kind of use and provide a buffer for the existing
residential. Clearly, you control how that property will develop in
terms of whether it's commercial or office or residential, but the
realities are, from our standpoint, the property is not usable as
residential. We've attempted to do that. Joe will speak to that
issue in a little bit. We feel that a limited office use is
reasonable and will provide a transition. In your Master Plan in
your community, if you look at your Master Plan, and I'm not
suggesting that you need to pull it out right now, although I think
Mark may have a slide of that. Most of your commercial areas
in the city have a buffer between the residential and commercial
uses with office. In fad, in all but two intersections, an area
north of 96 and west of Merriman, there's only two other
commercial intersections that don't have an office buffer in
some respects, this being one of them. We feel that this office
buffer will provide the buffer necessary between medium density
residential and the commercial to the south. We believe that the
use is a reasonable use in terms that we will not put excessive
demands on the City in terms of additional services. The office
use that is being proposed is consistent with that zone.
Because of the size of the property, it's going to be a limited use
no matter what, whether we put in the 4,200 square fool
building, or whether if this were to fall through and something
else were to go in, you're not going to have a large building in
21731
that location just because of the size of the property. We're
clearly not asking for anything over a single story. This area is
also not the classic concern, when you're taking one piece of
properly, is it a spot zone. This is not a spot zone. Spot zoning
is a situation where you're laking one piece of property that is
clearly out of character with the rest of the area and zoning it
that way. Yes, this is a single spot, but it's not a spot zone in
that regards. It's a transitional use from commercial to
residential. The office provides that and that is consistent as is
shown on your Master Plan in most of the other commercial
intersections. We feel that is consistent. In fad, if you kind of
look at this piece in isolation, it is residentially spot zoned
between a multiple family use, the condominiums to the north,
and the commercial use. The residential use, you can't see it
from that drawing, but the residential properties over here all
face off the residential streets. They do not face off of
Newburgh, except for thee or four homes going north on
Newburgh about half a mile to the north. All other homes have
access or face on a residential street. Of course, the
residences behind us on Liverpool all face off Liverpool, and
there is no direct access from our property onto Liverpool. If
there were, then it may make sense to continue that as
residential, but we don't have that access. So we're looking at
the possibility, if we were to keep it zoned residential, at using it
for a single family home with access between a 35 fool building
and a condominium to the north for a single family use. It didn't
make sense. We looked at other residential uses. We looked
at multiple family. You weren't excited about that. We weren't
particularly excited about that, but we were looking at what our
options were. We even went as far to look at adult foster care
type facilities or something like that because we could put a
single building in and do that, but even those facilities need
more space to operate properly. So it doesn't make sense for
residential use. We feel that the office space makes the most
sense. I guess at this point I'll break. I do want Joe to make
some brief comments about the availability of that property as
for its use and what it has been used in the past, or at least how
it could be used with what the market is because one of the
issues that was raised at the prior meetings is that there's no
market for office use in the area. We believe there is a market
for that, and that the use could be used for residential purposes.
So I'm going to let Joe speak, and I'd like to respond to any
comments.
Mr. Walsh: We'll have Mr. Durso speak and then we'll open the floor to
questions from the Commissioners.
21732
Mr. Daneman:
Before I do that, one quick question, one quick comment.
Again, the site plan, as Mark indicated, will meet all the zoning
requirements under the ordinance. It will not need any
variances, of course, and we are proposing a single story
residentially looking -it will be a brick facade structure. Il will be
limited to that, and as I said, we'd be willing to submit this to a
development agreement so this is what would be developed, or
at lead what would be approved as a site plan. We would do
that and then if this fell through or if there's any changes to the
site plan, we would come back to you, or the applicant would
come back to you at that point if they wanted to make changes
and go through the process again. Alternatively, if this were to
fall through, we would not object to having it rezoned back to
residential. We wouldn't object to that, so it gives you some
assurance. We're not trying to do a contract zone, but would
give you some assurance to manage it. If the property didn't
develop the way it was, it could go back to the way it currently is
right now.
Mr. Morrow:
I have one question. You indicated there would be no variances
required with that?
Mr. Daneman:
I don't believe there would be.
Mr. Morrow:
Aren't you asking that the prolective wall be waived in lieu of ...
Mr. Daneman:
I don't think that requires a variance. I think that can be
reviewed at site plan process.
Mr. Morrow:
It requires a waiver.
Mr. Daneman:
It requires a waiver. I understand that.
Mr. Morrow:
Of the ordinance.
Mr. Daneman:
Of the ordinance, but not ...
Mr. Morrow:
I want to make sure we get that cleared.
Mr. Daneman:
Sure, I understand that, and I understand that we'll go through a
site plan review process later through a formal process with you.
Mr. Morrow:
I know that comes later, but I just wanted to make sure that
we're on the same wavelength.
21733
Mr. Daneman:
Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Durso, if you could ... your name and address for the
record.
Joe Durso, 17448
McNamara, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen. I'm here to discuss the use of this property.
Basically, everybody is aware of the background of it, but
if you
just look at what you have there, there's not too many people
that would want to build a single residential home there. The
way its Zayed out and the way its silting there, zoned residential,
the highest and best use that I can look at it as a broker and
many years experience, this is as quiet and as nice of a use of
the properly, other than residential because of where its
located, that we can find. The highest and best use for it. I
think common sense would say that to put a house there on a
main street like that stuck in between the two buildings, the
condos and the SBC building, would not be really that attractive
to a buyer. So that's basically all I want to say. My experience
is that this seems to be a very good use, low intensity, not a lot
of traffic, closed in the evenings, closed on weekends, not
abusive to the neighbors either in the back or the condos.
Obviously with SBC they can't see anything anyhow because
there's no windows, but that's my feelings as a broker.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Durso. Are there any questons from the
commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Durso, have you had any feedback from the neighbors or in
any way have you folks contacted any of the neighbors?
Mr. Durso:
We just talked to a group of the neighbors outside, but prior to
this, no, we have not.
Mr. Morrow:
Its not required. I was just curious.
Mr. Durso:
We were going to try to have a meetng and the time just caught
up to us, and we couldn't make it happen.
Mr. Morrow:
I understand. Its not required. Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Durso, did you handle the transaction when the properly
was sold to Hunters Condos?
Mr. Durso:
No, sir, I did not. That was before my time in getting involved
with that.
21734
Mr. LaPine: Maybe I can ask the attorney. When this property was up for
sale, it was my understanding that the developer of the
condominium project Hunters wanted to buy the whole parcel.
Okay? And apparently, Mr. Stein didn't want to sell the whole
parcel or else they couldn't come to an agreement on that
parcel. Therefore, because he didn't sell the whole parcel,
whoever was the real estate broker at that time, I would think
should have informed him that leaving this small parcel is going
to create a real problem to develop it in the future. Can you tell
me why Mr. Stein didn't want to sell that property? Because
what he's done, he's created this situation himself. And now its
in the hands of the City, and we're trying to do what we think is
right both for him and for the residents in the area. If you could
just answer that question for me.
Mr. Daneman: I really can't address it because I dont know the history of it,
and unfortunately, Mr. Stein passed on now so we can't
determine what was his motivation at that time. I asked Mr.
Simon, who is Jackie's husband, if he knew anything about this
because the question came up before, and he didn't know about
it. We weren't aware of what the past history is. Mr. Stein had
some very peculiar ways of doing some things in the past and
may have had reasons for why he did what he did. It may not
have made a lot of sense at the time. I think that, in part, is why
I got involved in this process a year ago because we thought we
could look at it from a little more professional standpoint and try
to present it. We're stuck with what the property is and we feel
we have the right to make a reasonable use. Even as Joe said,
the highest and best use, I dont even know if we need to make
the highest and best use. We just want to be able to make a
reasonable use of the property, and we feel that the only
reasonable use right now is a respectable, limited office space.
I'm sorry I can't give you anything direct. I'm sorry we weren't
involved back eadier. Maybe we could have counseled and
reviewed the situation then, but that was then, and we've got to
deal with the cards we have right now. I appreciate the concern
that you have. There's nothing I can do about il, though.
Mr. LaPine: I appreciate your remarks, and I'm only trying to point out here,
the situation was created by him because its my understanding
he could have sold that parcel, and it could have been
developed at the same time as the rest of them, and we
wouldn't be here tonight. After three meetings, we haven't
come to a conclusion yet.
21735
Mr. Shane:
Will Mrs. Simon and Mr. Stein be using this building in any form,
or will they be the landlords?
Mr. Durso:
We have the potential purchaser here if you'd like to ask him
some questions.
Steve Gluck,
DDS, 4580 Pickering, Bloomfield Township, Michigan. I've been a
practicing dentist, starling my 24th year. My practice was started
by my father 51 years ago in Dearborn Heights. For the last five
years, I have been actively trying to find a location in the Livonia
area. The reason for my interest in Livonia is the dental practice
that was started by my father 51 years ago. The vast majority of
our patients now live in Livonia, Northville, Novi, Plymouth,
Canton and come back to the Dearborn Heights office. We've
basically outgrown our office space. We have about 1,400
square feet that we work out of right now. Like I said, the
majority of my practice is now living in this area. They always
joke with me when they come in for their appointments, "Doc,
when are you moving out to where we live?" It's been a difficult
search. I've work with Joe now for close to five years trying to
find an appropriate building. When he brought this location to
my attention, I was very, very excited. My purpose for speaking
to you is that I want to inform the Planning Commission, as well
as the concerned citizens that are here at this meeting, that I am
very agreeable to construct and build a building that is going to
be something that is going to be very unobtrusive, will blend
extremely well with the surrounding area, something that looks
very residential. I'm also willing to provide adequate screening
with either landscape shrubbery or a privacy wall, whichever the
surrounding neighbors feel would best suit their needs. I'm here
to answer any questions or concerns that the Council might
have or the Planning Commission or the citizens themselves,
but I plan on making this the location of my office. I would also,
you know, in the space that would be available there, I have a
physician that is very interested in coming in and renting the
remaining space from me. So that's my plan, and if you have
any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Walsh:
Just to make certain that Mr. Shane's question is answered, and
I wanted to give you an opportunity to explain your practice, but
he's inquiring as to the actual ownership.
Dr. Gluck:
I would be the owner of the building. I have a purchase
agreement in place contingent on this properly being rezoned
that I will be the purchaser of the property. We already have an
21736
agreement in place, and I will be the owner of the building as
well.
Mr. Shane:
How much of the building would you be ...
Dr. Gluck:
I would be occupying approximately 2,400 square feel.
Mr. Shane:
Thank you.
Dr. Gluck:
I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, but I would be even
agreeable to building a single building of 2,400 to 2,600 square
feel and being the sole occupant and not even having any other
space available to lease. That would also be agreeable to me.
I'm really looking primarily to have a space to move my dental
practice.
Mr. Alanskas:
You said you and your father have been in business for 51
years. What is the size of your customer base?
Dr. Gluck:
To be quite honest, I can't give you an exact number.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just roughly.
Dr. Gluck:
We have roughly about 3,000 patients.
Mr. Alanskas:
And you lake care of 3,000 patients yourself?
Dr. Gluck:
Yes, Ido.
Ms. Smiley:
You must do a good job.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine:
I just want you to understand. I don't think we have any
problem with you being there. If we have to have something
there, I think an OS building with a doctor or dentist is fine. I
have no problem with the building. It's a lot smaller than what
we had before, but my question is two -fold. How many doctors
will be there? One doctor?
Dr. Gluck:
Currently, I am in practice by myself.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that, but you're saying you would like to lease out
part of the building to another physician.
Dr. Gluck:
I would like to have a physician in there, yes.
21737
Mr. LaPine:
Would that be a single physician?
Dr. Gluck:
Based on the size of the space that would be available, yes it
would be a single physician.
Mr. LaPine:
Then you alone plus your hygienist?
Dr. Gluck:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
The second question is, will this be a Monday through Friday
operation or would it be open on Saturdays?
Dr. Gluck:
Currently, right now, I practice Monday through Friday. There
are two Saturdays a month that we see patients from 9:00 a.m.
to approximately 1:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Do you have your patients come on an appointment
basis so we don't have a lot of cars coming and going all during
the day?
Dr. Gluck:
That is correct. Our first appointment is 9:00 in the morning.
Our Iasi appointment generally is 4:30 or 5:00 in the evening,
and on appointment, exactly. So at any given time in my current
practice, there are two days during the week when we have two
hygienists working and I'm working, so approximately four or
five patients maximum would be in my practice at one time, so
its a limited traffic flow.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, this kind of leads to the question here that's on
this long lengthy report on page 5 where the petitioner is
offering a development agreement, not as a contractual
arrangement for the use, but rather as a control mechanism. I
don't know how that's to be designed here so the current or
appropriate zoning is maintained. We cannot condition zoning,
so how would something like this ft in there that we could be
assured? Now, some office arrangements are better than
others. We know that, and a dental office and a doctor's office
probably is about as good as we can ever get there as far as
traffic is concerned, rather than Tel's say an insurance office or
something of that nature or a tall building. How can we be
assured, without conditioning zoning, that this is a package that
is going to be suitable? Mark, have you looked into this?
Mr. Taormina:
What the City will normally do, when confronted with a
circumstance similar to what you've described, is act on the
21738
rezoning petition only so far. Then, prior to actually rezoning the
parcel, by holding the second reading, which would actually
make the rezoning effective, hold that until a site plan is
reviewed and has a chance to catch up all the way through the
Planning Commission and to the Council. Then the Council
acts on both the rezoning petition and the site plan together in
one evening. That way they pretty much are assured that the
plan that is being approved is consistent with whatever
discussions had taken place through the rezoning process. So
that's one mechanism by which the City has a certain level of
control over this issue. Ironically, there is a bill pending in the
legislature that would allow for, in effect, conditional zoning. Its
House Bill 6164, and it just passed the House on September 29
and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Urban and
State Affairs. So that's something that we're awaiting. In fact, if
there is enabling legislation that would give the City and
developers an opportunity to, in essence, contractually zone,
then I'm sure the City might look at that as an opportunity to
substitute what our current practice is.
Mr. Piercecchi: Looking down the road a little bit, once we rezone a piece of
property, its rezoned. Correct? And there are, like I said, some
office facilities are more compatible than others. How can we
be assured that the people living around that aren't going to be
encumbered? Let's say they knock the building down. It's OS,
and reconstruct another building making all the setbacks and all
that, going up to two stories maybe, instead of one. How can
we be assured that we won't have an apple toss like that on our
hands somewhere down the road? How can we be assured? Is
that where this contractual agreement fits in or does it not?
Mr. Daneman: Mark, if I could help you out on that a little bit?
Mr. Walsh: Actually, I'll address it. Mr. Taormina has explained that the
best. And Mr. Piercecchi, as you know, what we've done in the
past is to tie the approval for the zoning to the approval of the
site plan. That is the best that we can do until the legislation
that Mr. Taormina has addressed passes. Unlit then, we're not
able to condition the zoning.
Mr. Piercecchi: And then if there is a change, our thrust would then be on the
site plan that comes as secondary?
Mr. Walsh: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you very much
21739
Mr. Morrow:
Just on this same vein, not to belabor the point but the worst
case scenario, where I have no reason to doubllhe good dentist
that they would go through with it, but should circumstances
change and that not go through, do not we have the opportunity
to, under our own motion, rezone that property back to the
former zoning?
Mr. Walsh:
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
If there are no other questions for the petitioner at this point, I'm
going to go to the audience. All petitioners will have the
opportunity for the last word. With that, please state your name
and address for us.
George Boller,
36270 Hammer Lane, Livonia, Michigan. With respect, I'm sure
that this body knows there's a lot of vacant space in Livonia. Do
we really need to construct another building to house a dentist
office when I think there is vacant space in the vicinity of St.
Mary's Hospital, medical, dental, etc. Apart from that, this
Commission at the beginning of the meeting said it would make
recommendations to Council. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Walsh:
That's correct.
Mr. Boller:
Yes. I have a recommendation that I would like to have passed
on to Council. I don't know to what extent the Planning
Commission watches its own video.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, all comments tonight need to be restricted to the items on
the agenda.
Mr. Boller:
The agenda was broadcast on Channel 8, and I watched it, and
I came over here because I was watching it on Channel 8. The
header ran, Livonia Planning Commission meeting. Thereafter,
there was a screen talking about the elected officials, and it
listed certain officials who were not elected, but rather appointed
by the Council of Livonia.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir. Sir. Mr. Boller, I object.
Mr. Boller:
You may object all you want, Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Walsh:
I do object, Mr. Boller.
21740
Mr. Boller:
As you know ....
Mr. Walsh:
This is not the forum for this.
Mr. Boller:
I have filed a lawsuit.
Mr. Walsh:
You are out of order.
Mr. Boller:
I have filed a lawsuit against the City Council of Livonia.
Mr. Walsh:
This is not the forum.
Mr. Boller:
I'm not here ...
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Nowak, would you please ask the police officer to join us
and remove Mr. Boller?
Mr. Boller:
I'll remove myself voluntarily. You don't have to ask anybody.
Mr. Walsh:
You must remove yourself immediately. You are out of order,
sir.
Mr. Boller:
I object. I object to the fad that in the presentation on Channel
8, there was . .
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Boller, this is not the meeting ...
Mr. Boller:
There was this lead saying elected officials, certain officials
listed on there were not elected. I'm done. I'm out of here
voluntarily.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Morrow.
Mr. Morrow:
We're on Petition 2004-09-01-10. This is not germane to this
petition, and ... where did he go?
Mr. Walsh:
We will return our attention to the appropriate agenda item.
Denise Woods
Diabiase, 15619 Liverpool. I've been here many times, and I
have to thank you. This is the first lime, I don't know how to say
your name, but you and you ... excellent. You know the history
to this problem. I appreciate that. Our neighborhood is very
educated. We have come to these meetings. We have even
gone to the sub -meetings, and one of the things that's come
from that is we're educated. We know, because of that
zeal
wonderful Ameritech building, what happens when you're not
educated. Because we're educated, we're going to be here.
We're a very organized neighborhood. We have repeatedly
asked you to honor that we are residents. We want a house in
there. The market isn't right, but the gentleman, as you said,
created this albatross. There's been three attempts. Three
attempts. We have come out in force and you have listened to
us. We want it to be residential. This OS certification. Fifteen
feet from our backyards. Well, I used to have that field in my
backyard and now I've got the Hunter Homes condominiums.
They're beautiful but they are 10 feel from my backyard and I'm
claustrophobic. Its really light. They're beautiful. They're
there, but if I knew 10 feel was going to be like stepping on my
toes, I probably would have given you a harder time. The other
thing when I was looking at the gentleman's drawings, the
parking is facing the backyards. I don't know about you, but I
don't like ... my backyard is my private place. I don't want
someone's headlights in my backyard. I don't want a garbage
tmckrighl. Right now, with our little shopping center that's there
on the corner, that street sweeper comes at 11:00 at night. It
makes noise. We're concerned. work in an office. Where are
they going to put the medical waste? Who is going to police the
medical waste there? I dont see on that site drawn where the
garbage thing is. If you have garbage, you've got a truck. It
comes in, ding, ding, ding. It picks it up and it dumps it. That's
noise. That's not neighborhood noise. That's business noise.
Transitional use .... I have no idea what that is in the Master
Plan. In the Master Plan, this is a city offamilies. Families have
homes, and I have all these little scribbles to myself. The
Amerilect building is a horror story. I mean there's nothing we
can do to undo that. Don't allow that to happen again. I know
you've asked the right questions, but I haven't heard an
affirmative yes that the building can never be taller than one
story, and until you can all look me in the eye and say, 'that
building will never be above one story,' then I ask you to deny
this request. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Ma'am, you said you live on Liverpool?
Ms. Diabiase: Liverpool. 15619.
Mr. LaPine: I don't see it on here.
Mr. Walsh: Where are you in relation to the property?
Ms. Diabiase: I'm aboutthree houses up.
21742
Mr. LaPine: I'd just like to inform you, in the back of the building, nothing is
going to be in front of the lot, okay? From the back of the
building to where the parking lot ends, you'll have 78 feel, then
you've got 12 feel of greenbelt going in there. So you've got
almost 90 feel from the back of the building to where your house
is. So I doubt very much, when all those shrubs ...
Ms. Diabiase: When they grow in? Come to my backyard and I'll show you
shrubs that have grown in. I mean, they give you a tree that's
this big around. Trees grow slow. And then when the shrubs
died behind Ameritech, Mr. Hoppe is going to speak to you,
they've haven't been replaced. We were told, I don't know if it
was at this meeting or at City Council ... they'll lake care of
that. We have a history of things not being taken care of, so
we're taking care of ourselves, and that's why we're here.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm just trying to explain to you. The other issue you brought up
about the trash enclosure, that's something we can discuss with
the petitioner when he builds the building because normally
speaking, in a dental office or a physician's office, they don't
accumulate that much. A lot of the sluff has to be put in
containers because they're toxic. So there may not even be a
reason to have a dumpsler in here and have a pickup. Maybe
they can put their sluff out on Newburgh Road on Friday or
Saturday, whenever the truck picks up the garbage.
Ms. Diabiase:
I wouldn't want hazardous waste put out on Newburgh Road.
What's hazardous waste? Okay, anything that's blood borne. I
mean, in the medical field, if it's contaminated, it has to be
bagged differently and has to be picked up differently.
Mr. LaPine:
Right.
Ms. Diabiase:
There's going to be those types of materials there.
Mr. LaPine:
You're absolutely right.
Mr. Walsh:
We understand that.
Ms. Diabiase:
Oh, one other thing. Screen wall ... we could put a screen wall
up. If you live on the other side of a screen wall, its like you're
inside of a hampster cage.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you.
21743
Eileen Beale, 15559 Liverpool. Hello. This property and the headlights would be
directly in my backdoor, my house, shining in there. Its a
residential neighborhood. The Ameritech building is a
nightmare, but its a switching station. There's no one there
basically. To have streetlights shining in your house all the
time, would you want that in your backyard? I'm sure that you
wouldn't. I don't want it there. I dont want my grandchild to
have to pick up a needle because I've got an office space
directly in my background. It's a little tiny plot of land. Where
they would even have room for parking is beyond me. You can't
gel out onto Newburgh Road anymore. I have worked in the
City for 14 years. Never has the office space that I work in on
Schoolcraft, it has never been at full occupancy in 14 years.
That's tells you something. There's a difference between need
and greed. Its hearsay, I understand that, that he didn't sell to
the condos because he wanted loo much money. And they
said, we're not going to pay that. Well, I'm sorry they're left with
this little plot of land, but you know, he came to you and said I
want to build eight condominiums on this little tiny piece of
properly. You know, you have to be reasonable in what you ask
for. I've been in this City for a long time. I bought in a
residential neighborhood. I assumed that in the autumn of my
life, I wouldn't have to worry about having a medical building in
my backyard. You and I both know with the medical building
comes an element of crime. They're looking for drugs, and that
is a fact of life. That will have to be lit 24 hours a day, close to
it. What's going to happen to our suburban life? You know?
Do I have to get blackout shades because I've got streetlights
shining in my bedroom all night long? It just isn't fair. It's not
fair to us. Please, leave it residential. Thank you.
Donald Hoppe, 15547 Liverpool. I live directly behind the Ameritech building or
SBC, whatever you want to call it, and the lot that we're talking
about. I'm very disturbed. I thought we had solved the problem
of an office space there. We don't need that there. There's all
kinds of vacant space all over town, but the noise, the racket. I
don't need that. I'm tired of coming up here and talking about it.
I've lived over there for 42 years, and the last five years have
been a nightmare because of Mr. Stein's mistake. Did they say
he passed on or died or something?
Mr. Walsh: Yes. That was what we learned this evening.
Mr. Hoppe: Okay. It's his mistake as you related to in the beginning. We
told him that the last time. You ought to be me and Eileen living
behind the Ameritech building. You ought to be there in the
21744
morning when they come in and drop those great big huge
garbage things. I mean they dont just drop them. They slam
them down. We're going to have the same thing in that office
building space if that comes there. I don't care what you say.
He's going to have trash and garbage and everything else.
You're going to have to gel rid of it somehow. Once more, I say
I'm very disturbed we're even talking about this again. We don't
need that office space. There's office space right across kitty-
corner from that area right now. Thank you.
Tony Greco, 15616 Hunters Grove. My properly is directly north of the property
in question. Last year I followed this through the Planning
Commission and then onto City Council, and I believe that the
final resolution was an impasse between the concerned citizens
in the area and Mr. Stein, who wanted a rentable six unit facility.
The people around there would have probably went for some
sort of building that allowed them to sell it. So that was the
impasse. He wanted to rent the property, and we wanted him to
sell the property. So it ended there, and then I get a letter that
this is going on again. My question is, what has changed in the
year?
Mr. Walsh: Sir, just so everybody understands, every property owner has
the right to petition this body for action on their property. We
cannot by law dictate when and how.
Mr. Greco: Understood. And I certainly wouldn't want to deny him from
developing the land. That's his right to do that. The problem
with that is he comes here and says, look, I can't sell this to a
single family. I can't put one house on that piece of property.
Yet in the one year that I've been living in my home, I've never
seen a for sale sign; he's never hired a reallor. He's never
taken visual steps to sell the piece of property. Okay? If he had
done that and he comes here and says, look, I can't sell it to
anybody because there's a giant building there and nobody
wants to buy it, then we can talk. But it's my opinion that he has
not exhausted any kind of attempt to sell the land to a private
owner. Okay? That's point number one. Point number two, I
go to work every morning at roughly 8:30 to 9:00, and I take a
lett out of my driveway. I live on the south end. It takes me
sometimes six, seven minutes to gel out of my driveway
because of the traffic. Can you just imagine if we put another
driveway in between the one I'm turning lett out of and Five Mile
Road, in between there? Are we at some point going to need to
put a light there as well? Point number two. Point number
three, he can sit here and say, a parking lot ... he works 9 to 5.
21745
That's great. He works even if it's just Monday through Friday,
also great. The problem is that it's an empty lot at night. Okay?
I remember just a few years ago when I was a younger man,
what I used to do in empty parking lots. Those are great places
to sit around with friends, be loud, park cars, drink beer. Okay?
I mean that is the reality. You're looking for that kind of parking
lot because it's secluded. It creates noise; it creates additional
traffic. So I'm here to support the Liverpool residents, who
seem to have gotten taken on the whole Ameritech building, and
I wanted to just come here and express my concern. Thank
you.
Maria Gluck: Good evening. I am the wife of Dr. Steven Gluck who wishes to
purchase this property. As a homeowner, I understand the
concerns that these residents have. But as a homeowner, I also
value my property and appreciate its surroundings. Being that
my husband and I operate in this space, this work space, from
9:00 till 5:00 or 9:00 till 6:00, it is a second home to us. It
wouldn't be an Ameritech building that we had and showed no
pride in. It would be another home to us that we cherish and
spend a lot of time and energy and care in. I just want to make
sure that it's understood that our intentions are sincere, that our
intentions are to work with the community. The reason why we
decided to reside professionally in Livonia is because of the
history that it has, the community that it is, and the residents
that reside here. Our intentions are only to be a neighbor to
these people and by no means take advantage of them in any
way as maybe they feel the Ameritech building has done to
them. In regards to some of the concerns that come up
regarding waste and needles and things of that nature, those
things as we all know are disposed of properly. There are
companies that come in and are geared properly to take them
away in self-contained units, somewhat of a Brinks situation.
The gentlemen come in, grab them physically with their hands in
these contained units and remove them immediately out of the
doors into a vehicle that lakes and disposes of them in another
complete separate location. So concerns of needles or drugs or
anything of that nature being scattered throughout the
community would not be a concern. There are many other
medical and dental offices and buildings we know in this
community of Livonia, and we know that they all deal with them
in the proper ways and manner. I just wanted to make sure that
they understood that some of these concerns that they have,
there are professional ways to take care of them, and what our
sincere intentions are for this property, and that not only will we
zeas
be operating here as a business, but we would also be residents
of this community. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments from the petitioner?
Mr. Daneman: I want to assure everybody, and the question came up with the
development agreements, that is a tool that I happen to use.
I'm an attorney. I'm a land use attorney. I'm also a municipal
attorney on the west side of the stale. I'm representing the
Simons as a friend of theirs and I happen to have expertise in
this area. I'm also a planner. We've used development
agreements quite a bit on the west side of the stale. In fact,
because its been used in other areas of the stale on a fairly
regular basis, there's been the movement to legislate it with
some authority. You may recall, for somebody that may have
been on the Planning Commission for a number of years, that
planned use developments were in use well before they were
statutorily sanctioned. The development agreement is not a
contract in the sense that it's a contract zone, and I fully
understand what that's about, and I think you understand that
concept. What the development agreement does, and it's often
used in rezoning contracts, it's used in site plans, particularly in
planning developments to lock in what that site plan will be. So
if the site plan says its going to be a single story building and it's
going to be of such size and it's going to be of such
landscaping, that development agreement will firm that up. And
if that development agreement is agreed to by both the
developer and the city, and that's who sign its, and that's
breached, then there is legal action that can be taken over and
above and in addition to the zoning enforcement process, which
often is very cumbersome. So we think that is a good vehicle, a
good way, to lie in all the loose strings and to satisfy some of
the concerns that even came up tonight that we wouldn't have a
two-story building. It would look like the kind of building we're
proposing. True, the comment was made that the property
could always be rezoned. You could initiate it yourself. We
wouldn't object to it and that goes a long ways from a property
rights standpoint, so we think there's some value to having that
assurance. We think the development agreement helps you do
that. Whether we do that as part of a site plan or as part of the
rezoning is really going to be the decision ... if its done at all,
by the Planning Commission and by Council. We don't object to
how it's put in. We're just wiling to assure you that we'll meet
the conditions that we said we would. Several issues that were
raised by the individuals with regards to headlights, with regards
to setbacks and those things . .. of course all that will be
21747
addressed in the site plan process. Traffic control will be looked
at by your engineer, and we're sure there isn't going to be a
traffic problem. We would make sure that's the case. So we're
not opposed to that. We firmly believe, and we have tried to
market this property for a number of years, and I believe Joe
made the comment, but if you want him to come back up, he
can restate the process he's gone through. He has tried to
market this for both residenfial and non-residential. No, we've
not put a "for sale" sign on the property, and that isn't a common
practice on vacant property. It's common, of course, when
you're trying to sell residential, but it isn't that common on
vacant land, particularly a small piece. People who are looking
for something like that, they'll find out how to get access to it. It
was on the multi list. I believe it was on the multi list. It was
not? Okay. I'm sorry. I was not, but it was marketed. I hope
that addresses the questions. As I said, we feel there is no
other reasonable use. Yes, we had attempted to look at
residential because you rejected our earlier office. Office is
much more appropriate for this site. It's a small site. Putting
four or five or six units on there for residential use, which we
could do, we think doesn't make as much sense as a small
limited office use that we're proposing. That makes the most
sense for the City. Its a transitional use meaning it's a buffer.
We feel that makes the most sense for the City. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: With that, I am going to close the public hearing and seek a
motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#10-131-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 12, 2004, on
Petition 2004-09-01-10, submitted by Jacalyn Newman Simon
and Henry Stein, requesting to rezone property at 15552
Newburgh, located on the east side of Newburgh Road between
Five Mile Road and Ladywood Road in the Southwest I/ of
Section 17 from R -2A to OS, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that the Petition 2004-
09-01-10 be approved for the following reasons:
1. Thal the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a
transitional use between the commercial uses to the south
21748
and multiple family residenfial to the north and would
provide for a compatible use to help buffer the adjoining
residential neighborhood to the east from the nuisances
emanating from the Newburgh Road thoroughfare;
3. That the proposed change of zoning represents a minor
extension of nonresidential zoning along Newburgh Road
in this area; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
additional office uses to serve the 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: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to support this motion but I would prefer waiting until
this contractual law is established in the State House and the
Slate Senate, so I will probably vole no on it. But from the
description that this gentleman just gave us in reference to a
contract, it doesn't seem to be any different than a site plan
process. It seems to be the identical procedure. I don't see
anything different there. So I'm probably going to vole no on
this because I'd like to wail. If we can hold the builder's feet to
the fire on something, that's another ballgame and that may be
down the road. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I don't think what Mr. Piercecchi just said is really germane to
the situation. We can rezone this property without any contract
or anything of that nature. My position is, this is the third time
we've heard this parcel. We've had two other situations that we
have not agreed with. I think this is the least intrusive use for
that parcel. We could go back to residential and they could
build two or three homes on that lot that would be more square
footage than what the petitioner here is going to propose. For
those reasons, I think I have no problem with the rezoning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas: Could we put in the motion that the building would not be more
than one story?
Mr. Walsh: Can we do that, Mark? We're not able to do that for the
rezoning.
21749
Mr. Alanskas: We can do that at the time of site plan approval.
Mr. Morrow: My only concerns that I heard from the neighborhood tonight will
be addressed and made a part of our study should this petition
prevail at the City Council level, who will ultimately make the
final decision. I think this is a good transitional use. The
property has been laid fallow, and although it is zoning, I was
impressed with what the dentist and his wife said as to how they
will develop the building. They would take into account a lot of
the concerns that are here tonight from the neighborhood, and
for that reason, I'm going to support the motion.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, Shane, Alanskas, LaPine, Morrow, Walsh
NAYES: Piercecchi
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
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 0:4 kS FYM9=k I It 0 1*] OF11111, 11111H 811 al-b949h4go] 41-'
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
09-01-11, submitted by Joel Elliott and Marty Kozyn, on behalf
of CB Swim Club, requesting to rezone property at 28200
Lyndon Avenue, located on the east side of Harrison Avenue
(part of the CB Swim Club Site) between Lyndon Avenue and
Oakley Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 24 from RUF to R-
2.
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. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated September 17, 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
for this petition was not available for our review, which will be
done upon receipt from the petitioner. Additional right-of-way is
21750
not required at this time. As a subdivision, this development
may require storm water detention under Wayne County's
Storm Water Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second item is a
letter from residents in the area, received by the Planning
Commission on October 12, 2004, which reads as follows: "We,
the undersigned, are opposed to rezoning the property in this
petition from RUF to R-2. The reasons and comments are
stated below. (1) Property values can be expected to decrease
proportionately due to lower rezoning. (2) Surrounding RUF
owners can also petition for lower rezoning because this sets a
precedent and they will. (3) The intersection at Lyndon and
Harrison is across the street from a school. Traffic can be
expected to increase from lower rezoning. (4) The Mayor has
stated in his address in a recent Livonia 'news' (quarterly) that
the number one problem affecting Livonia is noise. Lower
rezoning will increase the noise. (5) Packing people in will
result in a lower quality of life eventually. (6) We need to keep
open spaces as open as possible. This is the last of them. (7)
Possibility of a blind corner. (8) People living in this area enjoy
the bigger lots. (9) Livonia is noted for its farming heritage.
Keep RUF's as RUF's." The letter is signed by nine persons
who all reside on lots on Harrison Avenue in the area north of
the property that is proposed to be rezoned. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Joel Elliott, 17462 Brookview. I'm going to be beef, but in my brevity, I want to
provide some details for anybody who has some concems. I've
got to say for the local residents in the area, I share many of
their concems as well. It is with great reluctance that we're
here, besides it's really cold in here. We're selling this property
as a last resort. We do not want to sell any of the properly. I
say Iasi resort because ... Marty if you could hand this out
please. I want to talk about four issues, four points real quick.
Its membership trends, financial burdens, the cost of
membership efforts and our fiduciary responsibility as a Board
for CB. I say four because I don't want to go to five. It is with
great reluctance and a last resort. As you can see, I've handed
out a very simple graph of our membership trends. Over the
last 10 years, our membership has dropped over 170 members,
from approximately 300 to exactly 132 currently. Lel me tell
you, with these trends, its not specifically with CB. In our
research and why our membership has gone down, although
with the great effort that we put forth to increase membership,
21751
with all that great effort, how come, still, our membership has
gone down? So we researched it a little bit. You'll see that we
found that not only the Livonia area, the Livonia swim clubs
membership have gone down as well. Now, many of the clubs
had the luxury of having big wailing lists. We didn't have that
luxury. So when I talk about membership, the waiting list has
dwindled significantly. Also, the area swim clubs, we swim in
the northern suburbs swim league against the other swim teams
in that league. There are 16 pools. Fifteen of those 16 pools
have seen either a great drop in wail list or a great drop in
membership. There's also research of national trends, and
what we found was some significant national trends. There's an
article by Jennifer Kay, Associated Press, that talked about
public pools and pool clubs that are sinking in popularity. She
states in an article that she published this summer that "pools
built for baby boomers 30, 40, 50 years ago are showing their
age and need costly repairs" That's exactly similar to CB.
Swimming has dropped in popularity because of air
conditioning. This is a study out of the University of
Pennsylvania. Changing lifestyles and competition from other
activities are also dwindling pool membership. So you see, the
general trend in membership in swim clubs has been going
downward. Now at the same time, you see, about len years
ago, about eight years ago, as you see our trend starting to go
down, the pool invested in a new swimming pool. The pool was
about 40 years old and basically they had to build a new pool.
This created some financial burden of about $400,000 at the
time. Now I support the decision back then. I wasn't a member;
I wasn't on board at that time. If you look at the trends, its
about 300 members. They needed a new pool. That's
something that had to be done. But if you see, exactly at that
time is when membership significantly started to fall. So that
created a financial burden. Point two. Currently, we still owe
about $137,000 on that loan. Our financial burden cannot be
supported with 130 members. Now point three, cost of
membership efforts. We've done a significant amount of cost
reduction and a significant amount of membership efforts over
the Iasi couple years that I've been on the Board. Without
listing all the efforts that we've went through, in our mind as a
Board and with feedback from the club, we've done everything
that we could do within our financial and voluntary boundaries to
increase membership. Now again, our fiduciary responsibility in
the future. Currently, we're paying bills of CB Swim Club from
loans from members. We have $48,000 in loans from members
to keep us afloat. We will not slay afloat this winter and be
around next year unless we sell this property. Now, in selling
21752
this properly, what we hope to do, what we want to do is
restructure our financials so that it can support the lower
membership. Another point with our fiduciary responsibility, is
we aren't going anywhere. We want CB Swim Club to slay
there. We need the property that we're going to sell to be
harmonious with the neighborhood. We don't need any
additional traffic. We need improved property values. We want
to increase the socioeconomic feasibilifies around the Club so
that it affords us the possibility to improve membership. Another
thing is, along with the income from this property, not only will
the income from the property allow us to lower our burden,
we're laking great steps to lower our fixed costs. I might have
mentioned this. We've lower our fixed costs by over $20,000
over the Iasi couple years. Frankly, we don't know what else we
can do. If we don't sell the property, we're going to have to
foreclose. We're going to have to sell the whole property, and
Comenca is going to take over the land. That's frankly our
choices.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, when does your time run for swimming, from May to Labor
Day?
Mr. Elliott: Yes, sir. It runs from just before the Memorial Day weekend to
Labor Day weekend.
Mr. Alanskas: The rest of the year, the whole facility is closed?
Mr. Elliott: That's exactly true.
Mr. Alanskas: There's nothing else you can do there in the winter months?
Mr. Elliott: I'd love to. Any ideas anybody has, that would be great.
Mr. Alanskas: An ice skating club or something?
Mr. Elliott: They have ice skating across the street for free at the park
behind Adams there.
Mr. Alanskas: If you sell this property, wouldn't this just be a temporaryfix?
Mr. Elliott: It could be a temporary fix. The current membership at the
current fees . let me state this specifically. At current
membership at current fees, if we don't . we have an
opportunity first of all to lower our costs further by about
21753
$11,000. There's a discrepancy of about $31,000 per year -the
current membership at 132 members at the current fees. So if
we don't lower the cost structure and use some of the income to
further market the property, the membership, then we will last
5.7 more years if we sell the property at $350,000. One of the
handcuffs that we've had over the years, we haven't had any
money to market. We send the swim team door -lo -door to send
out pamphlets. We've done a lot of different things. We've had
flea open houses. We've had membership drives. We think if
we spent a little bit more money to market it and gel the word
out there a little bit better, then perhaps we could bring that level
up to 160 members that would support the financial burden if we
sold the property.
Mr. Alanskas:
This could be a temporary fix. Wouldn't it be more feasible for
you to sell the entire piece of properly to try to get it all zoned to
like an R-2?
Mr. Elliott:
If I owned this property personally, that's exactly what I might do
for the financial gains, but the interest is to continue the
harmonious element within the neighborhood. This is a great
product. It has a great swim team and great swim lessons. It's
one of the reasons why, when I originally came to Livonia, that I
moved to the neighborhood. We believe that it would be better
to maintain CB than to sell the whole properly and there
wouldn't be a club there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Did you lose any membership by people putting in their own
private pools on their property?
Mr. Elliott:
I'm not sure if that's a factor. There's a lot of guesswork as to
why membership went down, including is it socioeconomic? A
lot of different theories have gone through. I'm not sure exactly
what hold true. All I know is that the local area and the national
area, the trends have shown that swim club membership has
gone down, and about the only facts I have is from Jennifer Kay
from the Associated Press who wrote an article on why
membership has gone down. No mention of personal pools.
Mr. La Pine:
Back in 1988 when you sold the parcels off on Oakley Avenue,
how much money did you gain then?
Mr. Elliott:
That's a good question. I haven't found any documentation that
shows what we sold the properly for. We went through the
basement of this building trying to find out exactly what
happened.
21754
Mr. LaPine:
Can you tell me how far in debt you were in '88 when you sold
the property and if you paid off your bills or anything like that
back then?
Mr. Elliott:
I have no idea what the financial situation was in 1988. In fad, I
wasn't sure until we went through this process and looked at
some of the documents for that land sale. I never realized, and
neither had any of the current board members, that we had sold
that property under the premise that there was some financial
distress at the time.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Lel me ask the next question. This whole parcel,
including the lots that were sold before, was this land donated
by the builder to the club?
Mr. Elliott:
I have no idea.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. The next question I have, looking at your membership,
starting
basically in 1995, in 1996 you had a membership of
300. Then it started going downhill every year for the next
seven years. In 2003, you had your biggest decline in enroll
from 225 to 149.
Mr. Elliott: Correct
Mr. LaPine: Now al the meeting we had al the Mayors office, you mentioned
that you thought a lot of that decline had to do with people
switching from the Swim Club and joining the Recreation
Center. You lost a certain amount of people there. I guess my
question is, my gut feeling is, in the long lens, this Club isn't
going to survive.
Mr. Elliott: I think the data probably supports that.
Mr. LaPine: What I'm saying, are we creating a situation here where we're
going to allow you to get another six lots, and in two or three
years from now, membership really drops and you're going to
lose it all and the bank takes it over instead? I don't know how
the deed read when the land was given to the club, how the
deed read that it has to revert back to the membership. It has to
revert back to somebody. Who is responsible for all the loans
you got out for the membership? One of the questions we
talked about when we had the meeting with the Mayor was,
have you got some appraisals on this property? Do you know
what the property is worth? Does a builder think he can build
21755
the homes there and have the right setbacks? Have you done
any of those things?
Mr. Elliott: Forthe total properly? Is thatthe question? What's the value of
the total properly?
Mr. LaPine: What about the parcels you'd like to sell off?
Mr. Elliott: We've got an offer now that gives us a basis of what we think
the property is worth. We started with about $400,000. That is
what some experts told us it was worth. So we solicited offers
for the properly under that basis, and we've got an offer now.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Lel me ask this next question. Let's assume you sold
the properly for $400,000. If you got the $400,000, can you pay
off all your loans to the bank, plus the loans to the individuals
who gave you money, and still have money left over to do
repairs? And once you got the club on a good financial fooling,
is it feasible for you to operate? What's the lowest number of
individuals that could be members of the club and still operate
proflably so you won't come back again in four or five years and
say, now we've got to gel rid of the whole parcel?
Mr. Elliott: If we maintain 130 members at our current membership fee, and
as I said, we won't be able to go indefinitely into the future. But
if we reduce our cost structure by $31,000, which is a stretch,
we can easily reduce it another $11,000 to bring it to a negative
$20,000. If we do that, and again, if we increase membership
from 130 to 150, it can go on indefinitely. Again, now, if we
keep members at 130, it will cost $884 in membership fees to
maintain that cost structure. If we maintain our current cost
structure at $460, and don't eliminate any of the costs at all, we
need 250 members. So what we're trying to do, again, is try to
reduce our fixed costs even further, increase membership
through marketing, at least 20 or 30 more members to keep on
going. If the membership trend continues to go, we dont make
it. That's correct. Unless those members are willing to pay $800
and some odd dollars for a membership.
Mr. LaPine: Let me ask one more question. What is the turnover as far as
houses being sold in that immediate area? Is it 10 percent a
year, 15 percent a year?
Mr. Elliott: I dont have that data
21756
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Well, many, many things that I was going to ask was covered by
Bob and Bill, but I loo am very concerned if, with approval, this
will this sustain you in the future. Now, you seem to be giving
us a lot of information financially. Why haven't you shared that
with us?
Mr.
Elliott:
Excuse me? Would you like a copy of this?
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Well, what you're talking about. What do you charge a year for
membership?
Mr.
Elliott:
$460.00.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
These are all questions I'm going to ask. How about your
initiation fee?
Mr.
Elliott:
That covers the initiation fee. The total is $525. Excuse me, its
actually $475.00, including inifiation fee, and a $75.00 ...
Mr.
Piercecchi:
That's for new members?
Mr.
Elliott:
Yes.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
New members is $475.00?
Mr.
Elliott:
$475.00 and then there's a $75.... excuse me ...
Mr.
Piercecchi:
The initiation fee is $75.00?
Mr.
Elliott:
Yes. Actually, ilsays here $460.00.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
I don't want to spend all day on these numbers here, but what
are your fixed costs per season?
Mr.
Elliott:
Currently, our total expenses are $107,000 per year.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
$170,000?
Mr.
Elliott:
$107,000.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
One seven zero. That's what you said, right?
Mr.
Elliott:
$107,065.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
$107?
21757
Mr.
Elliott:
$107,000.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Okay. Thats your costs and your revenue. Based on 150,
would be what?
Mr.
Elliott:
About $75,004.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Okay. So 75K is your income. Okay. Now you say the value of
the property, those six lots, is $400,000. Correct?
Mr.
Elliott:
Yes.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
That's your estimate?
Mr.
Elliott:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
And you say you have a buyer?
Mr.
Elliott:
We have an offer.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
You have an offer of $400,000?
Mr.
Elliott:
No, not $400,000.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
What was your offer?
Mr.
Elliott:
I'm not sure we should make that offer public.
Mr.
Walsh:
I agree.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Okay, but you had an offer. Does your club have a certain
domain? I'm asking these questions because I was President of
Burton Hollow.
Mr.
Elliott:
Oh. I feel for you. You can feel my pain.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
What is your domain? In Burton Hollow when we had problems,
we opened up. Anybody can join no matter where they live.
Have you tried that?
Mr.
Elliott:
Yes, sir. A great number of our membership is in Redford. In
fact, we haven't marketed Redford very good, but we think
there's an opportunity there. I don't know how that sits with the
Planning Commission.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
So you accept people ...
21758
Mr. Elliott:
We accept anybody. Are you currenfly a member of any swim
club, sir?
Ms. Smiley:
He'll sign you up tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I can understand your predicament. I went through this at one
time when 150 people wanted out of the Burton Hollow pool.
Just a few years ago, they had 150 people trying to gel in.
Mr. Elliott:
Yes, sir. A big wading list.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So these cyclic things happen, but looking at your trends here, I
don't know whether these are the beginning or the end or if you
should pick and choose.
Mr. Elliott:
Yes, from left to right.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What are these, the end?
Mr. Elliott:
Yes. This is the membership for the end of the year.
Mr. Piercecchi:
This is Labor Day members?
Mr. Elliott:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm wondering if you could come up with some scheme that was
less ambitious. That's why I'm asking these questions. Instead
of doing a whole strip along Harrison, perhaps one or two lots.
You're really going to destroy our ordinance.
Mr. Elliott:
One or two lots wouldn't meet the financial needs.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, you're looking at $60,000 is what you're telling me per lot if
its around $400,000.
Mr. Elliott:
Right, but $60,000 per lot, if we sell two lots, that's $120,000.
That's less that our financial burden for the loan.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Have you tried to refinance?
Mr. Elliott:
Yes. Absolutely. If you see the trends, not too many people
would want to refinance a business trend like our membership
trends. And that's why I said as a last resort. In reality, we
probably should have been here a couple years ago selling this
property because, again, we're afloat now because of $48,000
21759
in loans from our current members. We're able to get $15,000
more in loans if we need it, but we're trying not to go that way.
It depends on how long this could drag out. We definitely want
to meet our financial responsibilities as long as this process is
going.
Mr. Walsh:
For purposes of tonight, we accept that this is your Iasi chance
perhaps.
Mr. Elliott:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
The six lots are their final offer. Is there anything else, Mr.
Piercecchi?
Mr. Piercecchi:
This is something I could discuss with him for hours, so I'll sign
off here.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a couple of things here. Just to say to you, I'm certainly
sympathetic to what you're trying to do. My big concern is if we
follow through with this zoning, then we have, as you heard
tonight, two tremendous conflicts with our ordinance as it relates
to the size of the parcel and as it relates to setbacks to some of
the future homes that would go in. That said, have you done
the internals of your own membership? In other words, your
base right now seems to be 132. Have you done any internal
survey or anything to say, 'that's a solid base,' or do you think
132 is going to diminish even further between now and next
season?
Mr. Elliott:
No. We haven't done any type of assessment formally. What
we've done is we've talked to people. We've had general
membership meetings. I dont have a good feel for that actually.
Mr. Morrow:
The only other point I want to a make is that you don't paint a
very rosy picture. Just from the real estate or planning
standpoint, once you begin to parcel off portions of altracfive
land, you diminish the value. In other words, people like to
develop a larger area as opposed to two separate areas. I think
that's something you have to think about. Are you diminishing
the overall cost or the prospective selling price by parceling it off
rather than by biting the bullet and saying maybe it's time to see
if anybody wants to buy the large parcel?
Mr. Elliott:
Its an excellent question. I think its the fiduciary responsibility
of the Board to make sure we have an answer for that. We
talked to several builders and talked to some local developers.
21760
We believe that there won't be diminishing returns by splitting
part of that off now. If worse comes to worse, if we had to sell
the rest of the property, financial there's not much diminishing . .
. that's not a diminishing prospect.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. On the flip side of that, as it relates to designing the plat
or whatever we decide to do, then there could be some ultimate
plan with the larger piece, rather than trying to fit two pieces
together. And although it may not diminish the price, it may
impact the workable subdivision.
Mr. Elliott:
The harmonious stability of the neighborhood? Is that what
you're talking about?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes. So those are just points I wanted to make.
Mr. Walsh:
We're going to reserve any discussion on the site plan. We're
just looking at the rezoning for this evening.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Morrow was headed in the same direction I was. The
financial discussion is interesting, but we're being asked to
rezone property, and that's what I want to focus on. Whether or
not the swim club makes it, is a side issue. Is it good zoning to
rezone this property to R-2? If we do that, Lee's question is, if
the rest of the property follows suit, is it large enough and
configured such that it can be developed reasonably as well?
Mr. Elliott:
You can reasonably get seven more lots out of the rest of the
property.
Mr. Shane:
That is what is concerning me. I really hope you make it.
Mr. Elliott:
Yes.
Mr. Shane:
But you know, we have to look to the future to decide what this
land would be best used for, and really you're starting down that
road now by asking us to rezone it. The R-2 district seems
reasonable given the factthat the property to the north and east
is R-2. The idea of six lots seems reasonable from a zoning
standpoint. That's where I'm coming from. Mr. Piercecchi has a
lot of experience with swim clubs and I can see why he's
headed down that road, but I need to focus on zoning. That's
what we're trying to do here. So I'm encouraged by what seems
to be some future planning on your part. It must have taken a
lot to look at this property with developers to see what you could
do. That's really what I was concerned about that there is a
21761
plan to develop the rest of the property should you not be
successful.
Mr. Elliott: There is. We don't like to talk about it.
Mr. Shane: I understand, but we need to talk about it
Mr. LaPine: Just a couple questions. I agree with Mr. Morrow and Mr.
Shane. Its a lot easier to develop this parcel if it was sold as all
one piece. Builders like larger parcels because they can do
more things with it. My other question is, and it has to do with
finances, assuming that you sold the whole parcel right now,
you could pay off the bank. You could pay off everybody you
owe, and probably have a lot of money left over, I would
assume. My question is, I'm just curious: say you sold the
whole parcel for $650,000. Let's use that. Say your total debt is
$300,000, and you end up with $350,000. Who gets the
$350,000? Does that go back to just the members of the
Association? Does it go back to members who used to be
members of the swim club?
Mr. Elliott:
No, that would be me. No, I'm just kidding. Lel me read
specifically, Mr. LaPine, the section from our rules and
regulations. Article VI, Section 6: "Upon dissolution of the club,
the active members shall be entitled to a prorata distribution of
assets of the club after payment of all debts and liquidation of all
liabilities. Associate members shall not share in any
distribution." So our rules and regulations say that it will be an
even distribution of the assets to the current club members.
Mr. LaPine:
But if it went under and you didn't have the opportunity to sell it,
the bank would lake it over for the loans that you owe. Am I
correct? At least they would sell it and lake what they got
coming to them, and give the rest back to you.
Mr. Elliott:
That's right. Exactly. The bank would sell it, lake care of their
responsibility first, and then the assets would be distributed
accordingly.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, like everybody else, I hope it is going to make it. I have
my doubts, quite frankly. I'm being honest with you. I think it's
just a matter of if it's today, tomorrow or five years from now. If
you're here five years from now, I'll be really surprised.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have one more question in regards to all swim clubs. In
2001, you had 245 members. Then in 2004, you went down to
21762
132 members. Does weather have anything to do with declining
enrollment?
Mr. Elliott: No, but I think one of the key factors is the Rec Center opened
up at a very difficult time for us. It opened up in the Spring right
when people would be looking to join the swim club. We
solicited a lot of our membership who left, not everybody but a
lot of the membership who left the club. A substantial
percentage left because they had the choice of joining the new
Rec Center or joining CB, and they decided to join the Rec
Center.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because at the Rec Center you have internal swimming inside
the building if you had bad weather.
Mr. Elliott:
Right, but I think once you've enjoyed both products, you'd find
that they are both very different.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
That was basically it. I think they are two different people that
belong to swim club and belong the Rec Centre. I happen to
belong to both. The Rec Center is year round. It's also a health
club; but it's very family oriented. Right now I'm in a swim club,
and we're experiencing the same thing you're experiencing. As
my husband would say, I really enjoyed my $500 swim because
he goes once a year. People are just laking a different look at
it. My kids are grown now so it's a different beast. I wish you
well, but I'm not feeling good for you on this.
Mr. Walsh:
Al this point, I'd like to go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition to
rezone this property?
Cynthia Thomas, 28131 Oakley. I am a past member of CB Swim Club. I
enjoyed our membership there for a number of years. I am only
in favor if the entire parcel will be sold. The reason is because
the club house, if they sell just a portion of it now, I don't believe
its going to carry them very long because they have an aging
club house that is either going to have to be torn down or
repaired somehow. So we're going to be standing here again in
a number of years to petition the sale of the entire thing. As a
resident living nearby, I would rather only go through this
development one time. The other thing, they covered the cost
and sidewalks, because we dont have sidewalks that go across
our front yards. They were never initially put in. Because of
21763
that, we have bussing. So if they sell off the entire thing, and
then there's a subdivision that goes in there and then sidewalks
would be developed, would that affect our bussing?
Mr. Walsh:
Tonight we consider only the rezoning, but we certainly will take
that into account if this passes through the Council and comes
back to us when we see the site plan. We would certainly keep
that in mind.
Ms. Thomas:
Okay. That's all I have.
Charles Grandell, 14830 Harrison. I've lived there for 64 years. I'm against this
building of houses on Harrison because Harrison is the only
street from Five Mile to Lyndon, and it's almost as bad as
Middlebell and Inkster right now. We gel traffic from off of
Oakley and that new R-2 over there east of Harrison. We have
a school south of Lyndon across from the swim club. We have
a church across Harrison west of the swim club. If you build
those houses there, they come off of Lyndon without slopping.
They whiz right around. Now, if somebody is backing out of
those houses, there's going to be a lot of accidents over there.
We have Sl. Genevieve's traffic. We have traffic off of Five Mile
going south. We have traffic going north off of Lyndon.
Sometimes I have to wail five minutes to gel out of my driveway.
And there's children walking up Harrison after school. They're
going to have to put up with that traffic loo. I think that's a death
trap over there, and I'd like to see you people go there and see
it with your own eyes and see what they got over there. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Elliott, is there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Elliott:
No, sir. I think we're all set.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, this was an awful lot to chew here. I don't think
that a couple weeks or so would affect the decisions here. If I
may, I'd like to offer a motion to table it for a couple weeks.
On a motion by
Piercecchi, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was
#10-132-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 12, 2004, on
Petition 2004-09-01-11, submitted by Joel Elliott and Marty
Kozyn, on behalf of CB Swim Club, requesting to rezone
21764
properly at 28200 Lyndon Avenue, located on the east side of
Harrison Avenue (part of the CB Swim Club Site) between
Lyndon Avenue and Oakley Avenue in the Northeast '/. of
Section 24 from RUF to R-2, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that Petition 2004-09-01-11 be tabled until
the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on October
26, 2004.
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.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Piercecch, Morrow, Alanskas, La Pine, Shane,
NAYES:
Smiley, Walsh
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the item will be tabled.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2004-09-02-31 ALBANELLI CEMENT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
09-02-31, submitted by Albanelli Realty, on behalf of Albanelli
Cement Contractors, Inc., requesting waiver use approval for
outdoor storage of construction equipment and materials at a
business at 12725 Fairlane, located on the west side of Fairlane
Avenue between the CSX Railroad and Glendale Avenue in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 28.
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. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated September 13, 2004, which
reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal. No additional right-of-way is
required at this time. Development of Parcel A may require
detention under Wayne County's Storm Water Management
Ordinance. The following two legal descriptions should be used
21765
in conjunction with the waiver use." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 8, 2004,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request for waiver use approval
for outdoor stooge of construction equipment and materials on
property located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal and have no concems with respect to
traffic, points of ingress and egress, site capacity to
accommodate the proposed use as related to off-street parking
or any other safety matters." The letter is signed by Randall D.
Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated September 23, 2004, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 3, 2004, the above-
referencedpetition has been reviewed. This Department has no
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. The fourth letter is from
Paragon Properties Company, dated October 4, 2004, which
reads as follows: "1 am writing this letter to place my objection
to the above -referenced petition for wavier use approval for
outdoor storage at 12725 Fairtane. This is an M-1 District with
M-1 side yards and setbacks. It is not an M-2 District. We have
two vacant industrial buildings next to the petitioner at 12800
and 12813-27 Fairtane, and there is really no effective way to
police the housekeeping of outdoor stooge. It becomes a
constant problem of our having to do regular inspections and
request help from the City to issue violations. Unless a more
effective mechanism to control housekeeping can be found, 1
believe we are entitled to rely on the M-1 Ordinance that we
bargained for when we developed the adjoining property.
Thank you for your consideration." The letter is signed by
Harold Blumenstein. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Wayne Albanelli, 47830 Bellagio, Northville, Michigan 48167.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mr. Albanelli: I'd just like to say that we're moving to Livonia because we
outgrown our current facility. We want to move to Livonia
because it's in proximity to our residences, both Paul and
myself. He lives in Novi. I live in Northville. Its an existing
facility, which will fit our needs.
21766
Mr. Alanskas:
What are your hours of operation fortrucks coming in and going
out?
Mr. Albanelli:
The trucks usually go out about 6:15 in the morning and come
back about 6:00 at night. The office staff comes in around 7:30
-800.
Mr. Alanskas:
Aren't those mainly all diesel engines in those trucks?
Mr. Albanelli:
Yes, they are.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do they park there for a long time just running idly and making a
lot of noise?
Mr. Albanelli:
No, they don't. Usually for about 10 to 15 minutes they start
them up. We load them up with what they need for that day and
then they're out on the road going to the job sites.
Mr. Alanskas:
When you load them up, are they loaded with hi -lows?
Mr. Albanelli:
Hi -lows or hand loaded. Right.
Mr. Alanskas:
Or hand loaders. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
The future building that is shown on the site plan?
Mr. Albanelli:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any dale that you can affix to that or is it just up in the
air at this point?
Mr. Albanelli:
Well, its up in the air at this point. We don't know what's going
on. We're wailing for the economy to improve, and then I'm
hoping to have something going on within a year or so.
Mr. Morrow:
So its not in the way distant future? If the economy turns
around, it can be in the next year or two?
Mr. Albanelli:
That's correct.
Mr. Morrow:
As it relates to that site plan, you indicated that you're going to
remove those mounds of dirt and replace it with some sort of
crushed stone?
Mr. Albanelli:
Crashed concrete or crushed limestone. Correct.
21767
Mr. Morrow:
One of the things with all that dirt there, where you have that
lawn in front of the future building, would you think it would be
possible to build some sort of a berm in there during that
process which will form a screening up until the point that the
future building is erected?
Mr. Albanelli:
If that's what it would take, we would be more than willing to do
that.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm trying to be in sympathy with some of the concerns of the
properly owners around that if we did that, then a lot of the
storage would become invisible to them until you develop that. I
noticed that you put a lot of the odds and ends behind the
existing building with the tractors and trailers. That was one of
the thoughts that I had to screen it.
Mr. Albanelli:
We'd be more than willing to do that.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
You say you have one handicap parking space. Was that
number four or number five?
Mr. Albanelli:
Right. I can't see it from here.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because it doesn't show on our plans, a handicap parking spot.
If you want it closer to your entrance, I think it would be either
number four or five. Can you see that on your plan?
Mr. Albanelli:
Yes, I can see that right now. It's against the existing fence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Oh, I see it. Right now between one and two it says handicap.
But that's pretty far to walk to gel to the front entrance. Couldn't
you make it number four?
Mr. Albanelli:
I don't know if the area in between four and five will allow for the
space for the handicap right there. I think we would lose a
space if we moved the handicap parking to that area.
Mr. Alanskas:
Through the Chair, Mark, how many feel is that from the
handicap parking spot to get into the front? Ten, 20, 30 feel?
Mr. Taormina:
If we're talking about where it's presently shown, its going to be
about 20 feet. It seems to me that space number three would
probably offer the most advantageous location for a barrier free
space.
21768
Mr. Albanelli:
That's correct. We could switch those spots around.
Mr. Alanskas:
You could change that?
Mr. Albanelli:
Sure.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Fine. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Yes, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Taormina:
I'd like to follow up just a minute with Commissioner Morrow's
comments relative to the area between the building and the
road in front of the vacant parcel. If we do establish a bene
there, I would think that some landscaping on lop of that bene
would be appropriate to help shield the outdoor storage area.
Also, drainage will be an issue that he will have to address with
our Engineering Department. A buffer strip along that north
property line might be possible. I don't know what that distance
should be, but a grass strip a few feet in width should be
adequate to accommodate a drainage swale if needed. That
should also allow some separation between the storage of
equipment and the north property line. Again, some
landscaping along the east side would be a reasonable
adjustment to the plan in order to address some of the
concerns.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, could you make that part of the resolution? The petitioner
would work with the staff to develop a satisfactory berm for the
area.
Mr. Taormina:
That's fine.
Mr. LaPine:
My personal opinion is, I don't really see why we need a bene
there because he's going to build a new building. All the other
buildings along that road do not have berms in front of them.
Now I can understand the berm being there for a short period of
time to screen it from Pentagon Properties, because he's got
one kitty-corner from there, but to landscape it and then he
builds a building, then the building is not going to be able to be
seen from the road. Now I don't know if he's going to occupy
that building or if you're going to try to lease that building. I
don't know at this point, but I just don't see what we accomplish
by doing that. I can see it temporarily, but eventually if he builds
21769
a building there, I'd like to see the building be seen from the
road.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Morrow, I think your suggestion was a temporary berm, was
it not?
Mr. Morrow:
My suggestion was actually permanent. I wasn't thinking in
terms of a wall. I was just thinking of something you know what
is the normal height of our berm, three or four feel high.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
No, I wasn't thinking temporary. We have a lot of berms that
shield buildings.
Mr. LaPine:
What would be the reason for the berm? If he was storing
equipment back there, I would agree with you, but he's going to
build a building back there.
Mr. Morrow:
I had that thought in reading one of the pieces of
correspondence where they were talking about relying on the M-1
District not allowing outside storage, and I thought that would be
one way of softening the outdoor storage there. I was going to
also mention a little bit later on, that you and I checked the site
over there, as far as housekeeping, they do a very fine job of
keeping their yard in order. So I thought a combination of their
housekeeping and a berth to shield some of the other
equipment would make the best situation, but I'm only one vole.
Mr. Walsh:
Per Mr. Taormina's suggestions, we were just on the verge of a
motion. If there is no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion.
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-133-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 12, 2004, on
Petition 2004-09-02-31 submitted by Albanelli Really, on behalf
of Albanelli Cement Contractors, Inc., requesting waiver use
approval for outdoor storage of construction equipment and
materials at a business at 12725 Fairlane, located on the west
side of Fairlane Avenue between the CSX Railroad and
Glendale Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2004-09-02-31 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
21770
1. That the Site Plan submitted by Albanelli Cement
Contractors, Inc., dated August 30, 2004, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the visitor and employee parking spaces shown on
the site plan shall be double striped, including the provision
of barrier free parking, and all regular parking spaces shall
be 10'x20' in size as required;
3. That the location of the handicap parking space be placed
closer to the building entrance;
4. That the outdoor storage of trailers, backhoes, bulldozers,
commercial vehicles, equipment and materials shall be
limited to the designated locations as shown on the above -
referenced Site Plan and shall be maintained in an orderly
manner;
5. That there shall be no outdoor storage of disabled or
inopemtive equipment and vehicles, scrap material, debris
or other similar items;
6. That the outdoor stacking or stockpiling of materials shall
not exceed 8 feel in height above ground level;
7. That the unimproved northerly parcel shall be hard
surfaced with crushed rock or gravel prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of Occupancy by the Inspection
Department and shall be maintained in a dust -proof
condition, and said storage area shall be properly graded
and drained to dispose of all surface water in a manner as
approved by the Engineering Division;
8. That all landscaped and sodded areas shall be
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
9. That a dumpsler enclosure shall be provided in the
southwesterly portion of the site as shown on the Site Plan
which shall be constructed of brick, block or reinforced
poured concrete walls and with enclosure gates which shall
be properly maintained and, when not in use, closed at all
times;
10. That the plan referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of
application for the Certificate of Occupancy; and
21771
11. That a berm and appropriate landscaping be added to the
front of the unused properly to the north in order to shield
the view of the outdoor storage yard from the street.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject properly 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: I will support it, but I would ask the maker of the motion if he
would add Number 10 in deference to Mr. Morrow's suggestion
to add something to the effect that there be some at least
temporary landscaping placed in front of the unused property to
the north to help screen undesirable elements from the buildings
across the road. Something like that.
Mr. LaPine: I don't think ft's necessary, but I have no objection to it.
Mr. Alanskas: To the maker of the motion, could we also add changing the
handicap parking spot closer to the front of the building?
Mr. LaPine: No problem at all
Mr. Walsh: Okay, so if that's not a problem with Mr. Shane, we have a
further amended motion.
Mr.
Shane:
No problem.
Mr.
Walsh:
Mark, do you have sufficient
information to do that?
21772
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I certainly wouldn't vote against that as it relates
to what my suggestion was. I appreciate Mr. Shane putting it
back in because I thought it would be a landscape enhancement
that would serve a purpose to do some screening for a waiver of
some outdoor storage up until the time the future building is
made. If you want to make it permanent or temporary, I guess
that's of no consequence to me. So I will vole for the motion.
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 #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 891ST Public Hearings
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 891st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on September 14, 2004.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#10-134-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 891"Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on September 14, 2004, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Smiley,
Morrow, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 893rtl Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 12, 2004, was adjourned at 9:35
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
John Walsh. Chairman
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary