Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-11-1621824 MINUTES OF THE 895" PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 16, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 895° 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 Walter, 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 2004-10-01-12 THOROUGHBRED PROP. Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-10- 01-12 submitted by Thoroughbred Properties, LLC, on behalf of the Margaret Holley Estate, and Vincio Borin and Angela Borin, requesting to rezone property at 14821 and 14829 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Road and Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to OS. 21825 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 three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 21, 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 or legal description provided at this time except as noted below. Additional right-of-way is not required at this time. There is currently no storm sewer on the site. The only storm sewer available is under the jurisdiction of Wayne County. Use of this outlet will require a permit from Wayne County and will require detention in accordance with their Storm Water Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Housing Commission, dated November 1, 2004, which reads as follows: "Please be advised that the Livonia Housing Commission has reviewed the above - referenced petition to rezone two parcels on Farmington Road from residential to office services. The petition parcels are adjacent to the Silver Village senior citizen housing community. The Commission has no specific objection to the rezoning, but would like to offer the following comments and concerns. Similar to other parcels on Farmington Road that have undergone rezoning and development, the Commission has expressed its concem and wishes that adequate green space and landscaping be preserved at the rear of the parcels adjacent to Silver Village. In addition, proposed site lighting should not be directed towards the Silver Village property/buildings. The Housing Commission appreciates the continued efforts of the Planning Commission to assure that development projects do not have a negative impact on the Silver Village housing community." The letter is signed by James M. Inglis, Director, Livonia Housing Commission. The next letter is from J. D. Dinan Co., LLC, dated October 29, 2004, which reads as follows: We are the property owner at 14600- 14800 Farmington Road, directly across the street from this property. We object to the rezoning of this property. As a commercial property owner throughout Livonia, we feel that Livonia is over -saturated with vacant office buildings and that this rezoning will only contributed to a stagnant commercial office market. In driving around the Livonia area, it becomes crystal clear by the numerous 'For Lease' and 'For Sale' signs 21826 that adding more office buildings to this market is not in the City of Livonia's best interest Already along the Farmington Road corridor, from 8 Mile to Plymouth Road, the available office space is staggering. Therefore, we oppose the proposed rezoning of this property and would like our views placed on the record." The letter is signed by Kim Paterson, Manager. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. LaPine: Mark, will you put up the first slide? The next two lots to the north will be vacant. Is that right? Mr. Taormina: The parcel immediately to the north of this site once consisted of two lots and now contains Luther Lane. This is the driveway that provides access to the Lutheran Heritage Village. Directly to the north of Luther Lane are two lots of equal size that are currently being developed with the Centennial Office. Mr. LaPine: South of the two lots were talking about tonight, there's two more lots. Are those the two that will be left? Mr. Taormina: Coned. Mr. LaPine: On those two lots, there are three houses as I looked at them. Mr. Taormina: There are four parcels, 14829, 14821, 14815 and 14801 Farmington Road. These four parcels were the subject of a previous petition to rezone it to OS. The two lots in question each has a house. The two lots to the south have one house on those combined two lots. So there's a total of three houses on the four parcels. Mr. LaPine: My question to you is, when we originally heard this case, when Beaumont Hospital wanted to build something here for a cardiac rehab facility, he was going to build on four lots or three lots? Mr. Taormina: Four lots Mr. LaPine: All four lots. Mr. Taormina: Coned. Mr. LaPine: Which we were in favor of because then we only had one building on four lots. Now we can gel two lots and two 21827 buildings, four buildings compared to one building that we originally thought we were going to gel. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: That is conceivable. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Cad V. Creighton, Brasher, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton & Amann, LLP, 33300 Five Mile Road, Suite 210, Livonia, Michigan 48154. 1 am representing the petitioner, Thoroughbred Properties, LLC. The principal of Thoroughbred Properties, Richard C. Scoff, is with me tonight as are the principles of SludiozONE, LLC, the architectural firm that is assisting Mr. Scott with the development of this property and has prepared the proposed site plan that is before you. Mr. Scott has the singular distinction of being the son-in-law of my late partner, Charles G. Tangora, and is intending to occupy one of these buildings. He will be moving his offices from Five Mile and Levan here in Livonia to this property. So we are talking about an owner occupied projectfor at lead one of the two buildings, if there, in fact, ends up to be two buildings. We do have Paul Malelic and Julie Ju-Youn Kim, as I said, the principals of the SludiozONE architectural firm, here for any specific questions. As you can see from our proposed site plan, we are not intending to maximize the use of this site by any means. There is a rather significant amount of preservation of the natural greenery and significant trees at the rear of the property. We have a great deal of buffer area between the small portion of Silver Village that our rear lot line touches upon as well as the Lutheran, well it's no longer the Lutheran Home. I'm sorry. It has changed hands and has a different name. But we have paid careful attention and it is the intention to development this with an exceptional amount of an underutilizalion of rentable square foolable and an exceptional utilization of the natural greenery that's already there as well as some enhanced landscaping. I will entertain any questions that the Planning Commission might have. Mr. Shane: Did you at any time consider utilization of those two properties to the south that Mr. LaPine was referring to? Mr. Creighton: No. The acquisition costs for all four parcels far exceeded what was necessaryfor Mr. Scott's intended use. 21828 Mr. Shane: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: If this rezoning prevails, it sounds like you're ready to gel your project started fairly quickly? Mr. Creighton: Absolutely. This is a design and build project that we would intend to pursue as early as spring construction, assuming all falls in place in terms of the rezoning and the site plan approval. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: You say at the present time he's at Five Mile and Levan? Mr. Creighton: That's correct. Mr. Alanskas: Is he near the vet's office or is he on the north side of Five Mile? Mr. Creighton: He's on the south side of Five Mile immediately west of the car wash. Mr. Alanskas: Does he own that building? Mr. Creighton: No, he does not. Mr. Alanskas: So we're going to gain one building and then have another empty building? Mr. Creighton: Well, I'm sure that the owner doesn't intend for it to be empty. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. Piercecchi: In looking at your plan here, those two lots utilize 132 feet along Farmington Road. Correct? Mr. Creighton: If that's what the site plan says, I'm sure that's true. Mr. Piercecchi: I notice that you're putting these two buildings, parking, etc., on roughly 120 feel with about 12 feel left over in that rear comer. In other words, you are going to combine these two lots into one? Mr. Creighton: Correct. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Thankyou. 21829 Mr. Creighton: This essentially mirrors the Centennial Park development but with approximately 5,000 less square foot of building on the same amount of space. We are fully intending to erect first class office buildings very similar to those that TACS, LLC, is erecting on the Centennial site. We're looking to use only first class materials and make these very attractive buildings. Mr. Scott wants a building that he can be proud of that he can use for his own purposes. Mr. Piercecchi: From your plan here, most of this is really going to be vacant land, isn't it? Mr. Creighton: Well, a large part of itis going to be open space and landscaped area. Absolutely. Mr. Piercecchi: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LaPine: I think one of the problems I have is when we originally heard about this, we were rezoning it to OS. We were laking four lots and going to have one building, which I like because it cuts down on our number of curb cuts on Farmington Road, which is a very busy thoroughfare as you well know. Now we've got the possibility we're going to have two buildings and maybe the other two parcels will be sold and two more buildings. You say you thought about buying the property but because of the cost, and what he's going to use it for. One of the building's he's going to lease out. Is that right? Mr. Creighton: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: The other problem I have, the two buildings we have to the north are running east and west. If he bought these other two lots, we could switch these buildings around and run those north and south, which to me kind of breaks up the monotony of the way the buildings are. We could have Bnghlhouse running north and south, and we could have this building north and south. Then we have the building to the north running east and west, which I think is better planning than what you're proposing here. I mean, that's my personal opinion. I'm just disappointed that the original plan that we approved and we thought we were going to get with Beaumont Hospital has fallen through. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Smiley: Are you going to occupy the building in phase one or phase two, the front building? 21830 Mr. Creighton: Presumably, the phase one building. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: If there are no other questions from the Commissioners, we'll go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? William Smith: This is my wife, Diane Smith. We are executors of the Estate of Millon R. and Margaret E. Holley, the parcel so designated as 14821 Farmington Road. I guess it would be the southern most of the two properties. Just lel it be known that we do agree with the petition presented before the Commission here this evening. We were present, as you may recall, about this time last year when the Beaumont Hospital folks were considering having the parcels rezoned for office space. Just looking at the plan and looking at what has been happening in the City of Livonia in that particular area, it seems the trend is toward office space. The one gentleman, Mr. LaPine, mentioned there are four separate parcels over there. That is correct. Three of which do have single home buildings on them. I won't say that the buildings there . . my wife can probably help me more ... they're probably 50 years old. Is that right? Neither of the buildings is occupied al the present time, and it's my knowledge that there's no plans for them to be occupied as residential properties. Diane Smith: As my husband said, it was my parent's property. That was the house they built. It was the house I grew up in. Although you hate to see things change, I think Dr. Scotts building would be a welcome addition over there with him being a local businessman with some roots in Livonia, like they said through marriage. I think it would do well to have his office buildings there. Thankyou. Mr. LaPine: May I ask you one question? Did you say you were Mill Holley's Mr. Smith: Mill Holley's son-in-law. Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: Is that right? Mr. Smith: And Mill Holley's daughter. Mr. LaPine: I knew Mill really well. I fought a lot of political battles with Milt. He was really involved. 21831 Mr. Smith: He was a feisty individual. I certainly agree. Yes. Mr. La Pine: He was a feisty individual. Amen to that. And a very nice gentleman. Mr. Smith: And he did a lot for the City of Livonia believe it or not with its residents in mind. I can attest to that. Mr. LaPine: That's right. I can attest to that too. Thank you Mr. Smith: Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition. Seeing no one, and if there's no objection from the Commissioners, I'm going to close the public hearing on this item and call for a motion. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-144-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 16, 2004, on Petition 2004-10-01-12 submitted by Thoroughbred Properties, LLC, on behalf of the Margaret Holley Estate, and Vincio Bonn and Angela Bonn, requesting to rezone properly at 14821 and 14829 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Road and Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-10-01-12 be approved forlhe 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 additional office uses to serve the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical extension of an adjacent existing OS zoning district; 4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the properties located on the west side of Farmington Road north of Lyndon Road; and 21832 5. That the proposed change of zoning is in accordance with the Future Land Use Plan designation of Office land use for this area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Alanskas: I know we always require at least 15 percent landscaping. This site is going to have at least 47 percent. Its going to have a tree court between the two buildings and a large landscaped garden between the parking lot and the building in the rear, and a large portion of landscaping between the R-9 and the parking lot. So it's a very good plan. Thank you. 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 #2 PETITION 2004-10-01-13 LEO SOAVE BLG. CO Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 10-01-13 submitted by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., requesting to rezone the westerly portions of the properties at 20013, 20015 and 20019 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Fargo Road and Norfolk Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 4 from RUFA to R-3. 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. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated October 21, 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 or legal description provided at this time except that the areas noted should be removed, as they are the areas of the entire parcels. Additional right-of-way is not required at this time. Wayne County will require detention on this site in accordance with their Storm Water Management Ordinance." 21833 The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. As Mr. Taormina said, if this thing gels rezoned, we have two 99 foot lots on the west side of the property and one 80' x 120' lot on the east side. As of two years ago when Woodridge was developed, this was planned as a through road. So I don't think we're asking loo much out of the ordinary. Thank you. I'll answer your questions. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Soave, with the road going through, how many lots could you put on this properly? Mr. Soave: Right now, we have plans for three lots. Two on the west side and one on the east. Mr. Alanskas: Threelols. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Just looking at the map, Mr. Soave, was there an attempt to secure any of the other properties so you'd have more of a square or rectangle there? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. We tried that. The people to the north just want to sell the rear 180 feet. Mr. Morrow: But you did attempt to secure that properly? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Shane: How wide is that northerly lot? The one that you didn't purchase. Mr. Soave: Sixty-six feel wide. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: If I understand correctly, of these five lots, you've only got three of them under your control to build on? 21834 Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. Piercecchi: What will you do ifyou don'lgel the otherlwo? Mr. Soave: Well, if you're talking about ... okay, we own the third piece that's 20015 Farmington Road. We bought that about five years ago. That's the centerpiece. If we don't gel the other two, the road doesn't gel extended. Mr. Piercecchi: The two lots you dont have are the two with the notches. Is that the two you dont have? Mr. Soave: No, sir. The only one we don't have, which we have some of il, is on the west 180 feel, if I understand your question correctly. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi, are you asking ... Mr. Soave, you own or have rights to the properly in the yellow box. Is that correct? Mr. Soave: Yes. Mr. Walsh: So what you're asking to be rezoned is under your control. Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. Piercecchi: So there are other lots that could come down the road adjacent to that and be added to it? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. If that comes to pass, then we'll have one lot on Irving which would be about 118' frontage on Irving by 120', which way exceeds R-3 standards. Mr. Piercecchi: But right now your plan is to develop five homes on that property? Mr. Soave: No, sir. Three homes. Three houses. Three lots. Two on the west side and one on the east side because we're combining and splitting those lots because every lot on Farmington Road is only 66 feel wide. So to make R-3, we would have to take one lot and gel another 14 feel from the adjoining lot. I hope I'm answering yourqueslion, sir. Mr. Piercecchi: Its good enough. Mr. LaPine: I was also confused to be honest with you. I thought it was five lots too. Anyways, Irving is going to be constructed through, no matter what happens. Is that correct? 21835 Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: Then at this time, you're going to build the two lots on the east side and that's the extent of the building at this time. Mr. Soave: No, sir. Two lots on the west side. Mr. LaPine: On the west side. Mr. Soave: On the west side of Irving. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Soave: And one lot on the east side. Mr. LaPine: One lot on the east side. Which lot on the east side? Mr. Soave: That would be the southerly portion of the yellow box. Mr. LaPine: Going up Irving, going from Fargo going south, the first lot, is that the one you're going to develop? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, from Fargo and Irving going north, if I understand it right, that's going to be one Iol on the east side. Mr. LaPine: Those two He lots. Then you'll have the other two empty until such time you can gel additional properly. Mr. Soave: All we're going to have is just one empty. Mr. LaPine: Because you're laking some properly off of the one to combine with the other one. Is that what you're doing? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Its only 118 feel wide. Mr. LaPine: I was under the impression we were having three on the east and two the west. Mr. Soave: No. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Shane: Just so I'm clear, Mr. Soave. The two lots on the east, you're going to leave a portion of one of those lots to combine with the piece that you don't have? The reason I'm asking that is, that's 21836 only 66 feel wide. So if you develop all of your properly, that person is left with a piece that wouldn't be large enough. Do you know what I'm saying? Mr. Soave: Actually, Mr. Shane, the way I think its going to go, is, on Irving going north, on the southern part of that property, there's going to be one lot. Mr. Shane: I understand, which could be larger than what the ordinance requires because there is two lots there. Mr. Soave: Right, but first we're going to start with one 80 fool lot on the east side of the property. Mr. Shane: All right, so you're going to leave part of it undeveloped. Is that what you're going to do? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. Shane: So you can combine it with the one to the north. Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. Shane: Okay. Thats what I was concerned about because if that was left, then the 66 fool lot would be in limbo. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Irving will be developed now, straight through. Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Soave: It will be tied in, and I think that was the idea when I think Curtis developed the properly 30 some years ago. Mr. LaPine: Verygood, sir. was just curious. How do you find these things that are so difficult to develop? Do you fly around the City in a helicopter looking for them? Mr. Soave: Mr. LaPine, I do a lot of homework. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Leonor Orlicki, 20123 Irving Drive. I'm here with my family and some of my neighbors. I have a petition here signed by the majority of the 21837 people in our subdivision and also the subdivision on the other side connecting Irving Drive. We live on Irving Drive, and @ is right now an enclosed subdivision, one way in, one way out. I have small children. This is my little boy here. And we're used to not having to worry about cars buzzing through. The way our subdivision is constructed, it would be such a way that Irving Drive would then be a thoroughfare. People would be just flying up and down that street just like they do on Norfolk. I'm concerned for the safety of my children. The people in both subdivisions do not want this street to go through. I believe that there is a way of still being able to build the homes without having to make the subdivisions connect, where it could dead end on both ends. It won't take anything away from the properly. It can just be a dead end on our end; dead end on the other end and both subdivisions are in agreement to that. There's very few people that I was not able to gel signatures from. I have two pages worth right here. I don't know if you need this. Ours is an established subdivision. We like it the way it is, and we do not want to see Irving Drive go through. Not to slop him from building his homes, that's not what our proposition is for, just we don't want the street to go through and create that extra traffic. When Farmington gels backed up, Irving is going to be used for going back and forth. I've seen it happen before where people try to come into our street, realize its a dead end, and tum around. I have a six year old. I have an eight year daughter. My neighbors also have a six and eight year old child. We also have other kids that live right in that area, and all of us are very concerned about that street going through, and we don't want it. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Ma'm, I would like to ask if you will submit that for the record. If you give it to Mr. Piercecchi, he will pass it on to our staff so its with our materials. Mr. Morrow: I might ask the young lady, if I followed you correctly, you have no problem with the zoning? Mrs. Orlicki: No, I have no problem with the homes. I just don't want the streets to connect. They can abut up against each other. I'm mean, we're talking about maybe just a barrier where there are trees, and that will stop it from the streets connecting, but it wont change the way the homes can be built. Mr. Morrow: Okay. The reason I asked that question is because we're particularly concerned about the zoning tonight. We're not trying to develop roads or lots anything. That will be another 21838 subject when they come back to actually develop the property. Tonight, its just zoning. We'll certainly be cognizant of your remarks, but they're really not germane tonight because we're not trying to develop roads or lots or anything. We're just talking about the overall zoning of an area. Mark Orlicki, 20123 Irving Drive. In that case, we're opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Morrow: Okay. I just wanted to make sure you were clear on what our mission was tonight. It's rezoning. Mr. Odicki: Another concern of ours is on the south side of the lot you mentioned. They have an association and we don't have an association, and we don't wish to have an association and we don't want to be forced to join with their association. Mr. Alanskas: Did you say al the present time people are driving from Fargo to Irving to a dead end, and they have to back around and go back out? Mr. Odicki: When there is a backup on Farmington Road, if there's an accident or when construction was there a couple years ago or when traffic is real heavy, people figure they'll just cul through our subdivision and head back out to Farmington Road and head back southbound. Mr. Alanskas: Wouldn't it be better for less traffic for people to go straight through and not have to stop and backup? Mr. Orlicki: No, because it goes right in front of our house and that's where our children play. Mr. Alanskas: What's your address? Mr. Odicki: 20123 Irving. Mr. Alanskas: I see. All right. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: The rezoning to me is something I don't have a problem with because everything around there is residential. Now the argument you're giving me that you don't want the street to go through because you have small children, there's a lot of subdivisions in Livonia that roads go through. A lot of kids. We all have the same problems. When my kids were growing up, teenagers go up the street 40 - 50 miles an hour, but it's not really germane here. You've been fortunate that this road did 21839 not go through at the time the original subdivisions were constructed, but I would assume that somewhere along the line common sense would have said that Irving is going to go all the way through. Mr. Odicki: We've been there for five years. We knew that the neighbor, our kids call him Farmer, owned the properly that goes through and that Irving was not going to go all the way through to the other side. We've been there for five and a half years, and one of the reasons we picked that house is because it was a nice location, it was on a dead end, and we didn't have to worry about traffic going through. Mr. LaPine: Did anybody ever tell you that there was the possibility that the road was going to go through at some time? Mr. Orticki: No, because the property was privately owned. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mrs. Orlicki: I don't see any reason why it needs to. If the homes are constructed there, there's no reason for the streets to have to connect, and neither subdivision wants it to connect. The subdivision off of Fargo likes not having to have people come zooming down their street They like d with one way in and one way out. Also for crime reasons, its nicer to have one way in and one way out and not have people cutting through our subdivision and creating it as a thoroughfare. So its not going to harm the homes. We approve that, turning it residential, and approve making the homes. Our objection is mostly to not have the street go through and I'm positive it can be done without having the street go through. It's not necessary. If its a case of it not going through for the property, then I don't want it to go through if its subject to the street going through. So you can approve the property on the condition of the street not going through, and I think that's well within your rights to be able to do that. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, ma'm. Bob Morrison, 20080 Myron Drive. My property abuts the land you're talking about. That young lady was at my home the other day, and I explained to her that if we don't allow this road to go through, that leaves that as maybe a prime piece of property for someone wanting to build a commercial building. And I don't want a commercial building abutting the back end of my 21840 properly, and I'd rather have the houses built. Now when Mr. Soave was going to build that first subdivision, he was going to use Myron Drive as a way to gel in. We petitioned you as the Planning Commission not to allow that because all we'd have is the traffic coming down Myron. So as result of that, he built a road going into that subdivision. I thought that was fine. The properly that he's talking about where he's going to build, seems to me like that properly is what it should be. Well, my children were always told not to go in the road. Now if I had the ability or Tel's say the pleasure of having that properly dead end, that's fine. But I don't really see the need of now allowing him to puttheroadin. Thankyou. Mary Peters: I live on Irving Drive. We are the new homes. We are a subdivision that's four years old. We do have an association. We charge $25 a year. There will be no pressure put on anyone from the other subdivision to join us. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Mike Leighton, 20058 Myron. We weren't aware that Mr. Soave owned this property until just tonight. That's one of the reasons we're here. I will say a few years ago when Mr. Soave developed the property behind us, he was kind enough to come and knock on each of our doors and tell us what he planned to do. That sent a clear signal to me that he was a man of honor and willing to work with the concerns of those who live in the adjoining properly. I think the same principle can be applied to what he's doing now. I think from what I've seen, Mr. Soave is an honorable man. We would ask him to use good judgment in terms of developing this properly. Ideally, I would like to see it remain as it is. I know that's not possible because our property abuts up to the vacant property. We would like to see that happen. We know that's not going to happen. I would much rather see this properly be rezoned to residential and have it developed by a man of honor, who I feel I can trust, by saying please use good judgment, please talk to us and solicit our thoughts about what you're planning to do. I know you would be under no compunction to follow those desires, but I would encourage you to at least chat with us. My fear, as echoed by our neighbor, Bob Morrison, is that I don't want to see that property bought up by some big developer and turned into a commercial area. Earlier tonight we heard comments about office space being built on some property around the Five Mile area. We've been Livonia residents for 25 years. I drive up and down Farmington Road just about every day going to work, and I see so many blank empty office spaces that it just distresses 21841 me to no end. I don't want to see that happen to our properly. I'd much rather see it zoned residential. So in summary, from my perspective, I have no objection to having this properly rezoned residential. I would implore Mr. Soave to please take into account the concerns of those who are adjacent to that property and solicit our input before he actually begins construction. Thank you. Kevin Priddy, 20105 Farmington. Good evening member of the Council. This is my wife, Beth. We're two parcels north of I guess the little square on Farmington Road. I just wanted to stale that I've lived in the area since 1987 on Irving Drive, moving to Farmington Road in 2000. We'd just like to say that it looks like from the plans and everything, the plan was to have it eventually zoned residential, complete the road. That's a whole other issue, but it looks like the residential would make sense. We would appreciate having houses in there rather than some other type of development. Obviously living on Farmington Road, we have quite a few office buildings. So I think the residential makes sense, and I'm sure Mr. Soave will bring forward his plans on developing the houses and any road issues or anything at another time, but I believe the residential seems to make sense. Beth Priddy, 20105 Farmington. I just wanted to offer my support to Soave to rezone the land for residential housing. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Carol Priddy, 20100 Irving. I'm going to be living right next door to the properly that's going to be developed. We've been there 15 years and we knew eventually something was going to happen there, that the road was eventually going to go through or some type of development. Al this point, I'd rather see housing go through there. So I have no problems with Mr. Soave's plans. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh: Yes, Mr. Morrow. Mr. Morrow: If there is no one else, can I just have one quick thing I'd like to add? 21842 Mr. Walsh: Let's first close the public hearing, and then we'll go to a motion and commentary. Mr. Morrow: I just have a comment relative to the public hearing. Mr. Walsh: Okay, then I won't close it. Please go ahead. Mr. Morrow: There a way lady, forgive me I forgot her name, and she had made some reference to conditioning the zoning. By all that I know about what we're allowed to do, we're precluded from conditioning the zoning in any manner this evening. Either it's zoned R-3 or its not zoned. We can't condition it. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh: That's correct. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Does the pefifioner have any Iasi words? Mr. Soave: Thank you very much. Before we fled this pefition, I talked to the concerned properly owners on both sides of this property, and at that time, nobody had any problems with it. I dont know if you recall, but when we came for site plan approval for Crosswinds Estates, one of the issues was that the road wasn't being extended. So now, we have the opportunity to lie these roads in together, and it would seem to me, that anybody that would buy that piece of property or a house adjoining it would know that eventually the road would go through. Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing, and a motion is in order. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-145-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 16, 2004, on Petition 2004-10-01-13 submitted by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., requesting to rezone the wesledy porton of the properties at 20013, 20015 and 20019 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Fargo Road and Norfolk Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-10-02-13 be approved for the following reasons: 21843 1. That 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 is consistent with the developing character of the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of Low Density Residential land use in this general area; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning represents an extension of an existing zoning district occurring on adjacent properties to the north, west and south. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2004-10-02-32 BOBCAT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 10-02-32 submitted by DeWulf Associates, on behalf of Bobcat of Motor City, requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor display and storage of Bobcat construction vehicles at 31231 SchoolcmR Road, located on south side of Schoolcraft Road between Merriman Road and Middlebell Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26. 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 October 20, 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 or legal description provided at this time. Additional right-of-way is not required at this time. This 21844 development may require storm water detention under the Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. The proposed storage area should be drained into catch basins which can outlet to an existing storm sewer on the south and west side of the parcel." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 3, 2004, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for Waiver Use approval by Bobcat of Motor City for outdoor display and storage of vehicles 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 Division of Police, dated October 15, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal for outdoor display and storage of construction vehicles. We have no objections to the plans as submitted except that two handicap parking spaces are required and only one is indicated." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 29, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 15, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This plan has issues to be resolved not detailed on it (a) There is an existing drainage basin in the southwest area that has old fencing around it. No mention is made of this. A clearance from Engineering must be obtained to change this. (b) There are approximately 25 parking spaces, marked and utilized on the east property side by Livonia Commerce Center. Are there cross -parking easements in existence or can this parking be removed without adverse effects? This Department has no further objections to the petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Dennis DeWulf, DeWulf Associates Architects, 27206 Harper, Sl. Clair Shores, Michigan 48081. First, I'd like to request that all compass points be called west. Thank you, Mr. Taormina, for that description. I normally do that and you've said more than I nornally would have said in a situation like this. I don't know what else I can answer for you. I'd be happy to answer your questions. I do 21046 have some magazines here that Mr. Linville, the General Manager of Bobcat of Motor City, has brought with him in case any of you would like to see the kinds of vehicles that they propose to sell and rent at this facility. Mr. Walsh: If you give those to Ms. Roney she will pass them out to each of us. Mr. DeWulf: Typically, they are what are known as Bobcats, and if any of you are familiar with construction sites, you'll see Bobcats skidding all over the place. They're little machines. They're little end loaders, little backhoes, small construction implements. What Bobcat of Motor City intends to do is sell and rent them to the construction industry. Their primary customer is the construction industry. They do not sell retail. They sell to the construction industry on a daily Monday through Friday basis from between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The purpose for the petition is to construct a storage lot to provide protection for these valuable little tools that are very much in demand. That was what the petition this evening is for. Previously there was a CAT dealer, Caterpiller dealer, in there I think three or four years ago. When Caterpiller merged with another company, they vacated the premises. Well, we go from a CAT to a Bobcat and similar situation, smaller vehicles. If there's anything I can answer, I'd be more than happy to do so. Mr. Morrow: One question I had is, will all of the Bobcats and related equipment be stored behind the fence? Mr. DeWulf: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: So we can look forward to no type of display as we gel up to SchoolcraR Road? Mr. DeWulf: Al the present time, that is the plan. I know that Bobcat likes to put display pads out near the street in many communities. If they should decide to do that, they will petition you for that permission. The present plan is not to include that. Mr. Morrow: I'm pleased to hear that. I don't want to tie you down to any specific numbers, butjust give me a kind of a count. Mr. DeWulf: Sixty. Mr. Morrow: Sixty? 21846 Mr. DeWulf: There will be about 60 vehicles. Mr. Morrow: Sixtyvehicles ofdifferent types? Mr. DeWulf: Differentlypes, different footprints. Mr. Morrow: Thatwe'II find in this brochure? Mr. DeWulf: Typically that area that you have there would accommodate about 60 vehicles. Mr. Morrow: And I do see a lot of Bobcats running around town. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: How high is the chain link fence going to be? Mr. DeWulf: We will make it whatever height you'd like it to be. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. You will not have any barbed wire fence? Mr. DeWulf: No. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. DeWulf: Would you have a request for height? Mr. Alanskas: Mark, is itfive feet on the chain link fence in M-1? Mr. DeWulf: We're concerned about security, and certainly if you say six or eight feet. .. Mr. Alanskas: As long as you slay within the ordinance. I think its five feet. Mr. Taormina: I would say they would prefer a minimum of six feet and probably could go as high as seven feel. Mr. Alanskas: Whatever the ordinance is and as long as there's no barbed wire, that's fine. Mr. DeWulf: Six feel is what is presently there, and that's what they would request. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Just two questions. In the letter we got from the Inspection Department, they mention there is 25 parking spaces marked 21847 and utilized on the east property line by the Livonia Commerce Center. That's the building to the east of you. Mr. DeWulf: Yes. Thats to the west, by the way. Mr. LaPine: To the west, well, whatever. You don't have any problem with that. I mean, you don't have any agreement with them that they can use your parking and you can use theirs, do you? Mr. DeWulf: Yes. I'd like Mr. Kim Linville, the General Manager of Bobcat of Motor City, to answer that. He's aware of the history of that. Kim Linville, Bobcat of Motor City, 6991 Auburn Road, Utica, Michigan 48317. No, we have no intention of utilizing that, but I know the current owner and the owner of that facility next door have had discussions on those parking spots, but we have no plans to use them. Mr. LaPine: You don't really need that parking. Mr. Linville: No, we don't. Mr. LaPine: The other question I have, on your plans it says "proposed chain link fence" You have a chain link fence out there now. Do you not? Is that coming down and you're pulling up a new one? Is that your plan? Mr. Linville: Its basically just moving it. What direction is that now? Mr. DeWulf: West. Mr. Linville: Moving it north a little bit where it currently is. Mr. LaPine: Okay. And then in the rear there where there's kind of a swale, that's all going to be evened off and asphalt put down? Mr. Linville: Yes, that is correct. Mr. DeWulf: The fence will probably have to be removed in its entirety because the grade is so high on the properly. Mr. LaPine: That's what I figured. Mr. DeWulf: Its higher by about three feet than the surrounding properties. Mr. LaPine: And it is in pretty bad shape. 21848 Mr. DeWulf: As part of the program, the property would be brought down to be more in keeping with its surroundings, and at that point, the fence would have to be lowered. Mr. LaPine: Now, what community are you moving from? Mr. Linville: We're currently in Utica and we're opening up a facility in Clinton Township right now. This will be our second location. Mr. LaPine: We welcome you to Livonia. Mr. Linville: Thank you. Mr. Taormina: Just a point of clarification regarding the parking on the east side of the properly. As you can see from this photograph, the area in question is located south of the building. You can see where the parking spaces extend onto the petitioner's lot. If we look at the site plan, they are showing this area as part of their storage lot. But as I understand it this evening, they're going to pull that fence back even with the building and keep those parking spaces for use by the adjacent property. Mr. Linville: Yes, the fence currently is even with the building. We plan to just keep it there. Mr. Taormina: Right along this line here, which is even with the building. Mr. Linville: Yes, that's correct. Mr. Taormina: Because the site plan would have to be modified to reflect that. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Steve Vlahakis, 22140 Perth Court, Novi, Michigan 48374. I own the property, and Ijust want to welcome the fact that we have a national company coming to Livonia. The building has been empty for four years. We did have one tenant in there but they didn't pay their rent. We welcome the opportunity to have Bobcat in our building. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate it. Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this item, I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. 21849 Mr. Piercecchi: I will offer a motion to approve. I find this proposal meets our landscaping requirements. The designated equipment will be located and confined in improved areas, and there will be minimum modification tothe building. On a motion by Pieroecchi, seconded by Alansakas, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-146-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 16, 2004, on Petition 2004-10-02-32 submitted by DeWulf Associates, on behalf of Bobcat of Motor City, requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor display and storage of Bobcat construction vehicles at 31231 SchoolcraR Road, located on south side of SchoolcmR Road between Merriman Road and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004- 10-02-32 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A prepared by DeWulf Associates Architects, dated October 14, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Building Elevations and Interior Renovations Plan marked Sheet B prepared by DeWulf Associates Architects, dated October 14, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the outdoor display and/or storage of construction vehicles and equipment shall only occur within the designated fenced area comprising the rear yard and a portion of the west side yard as shown on the above - referenced site plan; 4. That the required number of handicapped accessible parking spaces shall be provided and these spaces shall be properly sized, marked and signed; 5. That the entire area to be utilized for the outdoor display and/or storage of construction vehicles and equipment shall be paved with asphalt, 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; 6. That a dumpster enclosure shall be provided in the northwesterly portion of the display/storage area as shown 21850 on the Site Plan, which shall be constructed of brick- texlured cast -in-place concrete walls and with metal enclosure gates which shall be properly maintained and, when not in use, closed at all times; 7. That all exterior lighting shall be properly shielded and shall not exceed 20 feel in height above grade; 8. That the construction vehicles and equipment shall be stored in an orderly manner in the designated area as shown on the Site Plan, and there shall be no outdoor storage of disabled or inoperative vehicles or equipment, scrap material, debris or other similar items; 9. That all landscaped and sodded areas shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and 10. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use 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. Thatthesubject propertyhas 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 21851 Y 1:4 1 i E'i=:J =k 1 It 1 [a] C FIQiL 5 I[eIzYHa6Y69 C\ Y [a] Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 10-02-33 submitted by Byblos General Contracting requesting waiver use approval to demolish an existing gas station and replace it with a new gas station and carryout restaurant with seating at 36421 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Raleigh Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under pefition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 21, 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 or legal description provided at this time except as noted below. Additional right-of-way is not required at this time. There is currently no storm sewer on the site. They would be required in conjunction with the new development. Sewers are available in Levan Road or Plymouth Road. A permit will be required from the Michigan Department of Transportation if the Plymouth Road sewer is used." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 3, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plans submitted in connection with a request to demolish an existing gas station and replace it with a new gas station that will include a carryout restaurant on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal and have no concerns 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 Division of Police, dated October 15, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to demolish an existing gas station and replace it with a new gas station with a carryout restaurant. We submit the following recommendations for your consideration: (1) Recommend 'No Left Tum' sign at the eastemmost driveway exiting to Plymouth Road. (2) Recommend height signs for the canopy over the gasoline pumps. The handicap parking space must be property posted." The letter is signed by 21852 Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 28, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 28, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The front yard on this site is actually Levan Road even though Plymouth Road appears as the front yard. Therefore, the front yard setback at 46 feet is deficient of the 60 feet required and will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to be built as proposed. (2) The existing protective screen wall averages slightly less than five feet and will need to be raised to meet minimum standards. (3) This plan shows existing light poles and bases to remain. Only the pole in the northeast area exists and it is in poor repair. The plan should be adjusted to show new light poles and new bases, all properly directed and shielded. (4) The existing concrete approach on Levan is in poor repair. (5) The handicap accessible parking space must be 8 feet wide with an adjacent 8 foot aisle, marked as van accessible. It is assumed there is no curb at the aisle. (6) The point -0f --sale counter must be barrier free also in addition to the other required areas. (7) The depiction of the parcel orientation on the vicinity map is incorrect" The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated October 25, 2004, which reads as follows: With reference to the above, the Plymouth Road Development Authority at their Board meeting of October 21, 2004, reviewed with the owner's representative and their architect plans for the redevelopment of the property. Plans reviewed consisted of the site plan, building elevations plan, landscape plan and site detail sheet. All the plans were well received by the Board. The Board especially liked the proposal to incorporate the PRDA's brick pier and simulated wrought -iron fence detail with related landscape planting in their front yard adjacent to Plymouth Road. The Plymouth Road Development Authority enthusiastically supports this development proposal." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, PRDA Director. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Nasser Choucair, Byblos General Contracting, P.O. Box 607, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Choucair: Not really. You've said more than enough. 21853 Mr. Alanskas: What kind of restaurant will that be? Mr. Choucair: I guess it's going to be a Subway. Mr. Alanskas: It is going to be a Subway? Mr. Choucair: Yes. We have like six or eight seats. Mr. Alanskas: Our notes say 12 seats. Mr. Choucair: It depends on our parking spaces. Mr. Alanskas: But it definitely will be a Subway? Mr. Choucair: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: On your lop page for your canopy looking at the side view, you're showing that you're going to have four rows of recessed lights. How many total lights are you going to have on the canopy? Mr. Choucair: Do we have that section for the canopy? It's going to be recessed light. Mr. Alanskas: I know its going to be recessed, but how many lights are you going to have? Mr. Choucair: We're going to have these lights four feet apart in this canopy, so we're going to have around 30. Mr. Alanskas: Around 30. And why did you pick 320 wattage for these lights? Mr. Choucair: These lights they would be best instead of putting 415. Il would be so bright a candle, that the light, when we do a photometric, the light is going to go out of the area. So what we do, we pick these lights because they're going to be condensed under the canopy, and they won't flood outside the area. Mr. Alanskas: The reason I'm asking is because we have a few stations that in the evening look like a lighted ballpark because it's so high in wattage. What is the next lower wattage on the light from 320 that you could put in there? Mr. Choucair: We can go to 250. PAW,*l Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask is because there's a Sunoco station on the corner of Haggerty and Five Mile and there's one on Plymouth Road and Eckles. Unfortunately, I didn't slop in there to see what their wattage is, but it's very, very bright. I want to make sure on this corner we don't have that problem because it can be intrusive with that much lighting. So you could go down to 250? Mr. Choucair: Yes, but I think any canopy which has lights, not the way its designed in this one, would be very bright because of the drop light. Mr. Alanskas: We have a lot in here that are recessed, but they're still very bright. Do you know what the wattage is at the Mobil station across from you? Mr. Choucair: Where? Mr. Alanskas: Right across the street from you. Mr. Morrow: Its a Shell station. Mr. Alanskas: Its a Shell station, right. Mr. Choucair: I have no idea. Mr. Alanskas: I'm going to drive by there. I just want to check to see what the wattage is because I want to make sure the canopy is not too bright on that comer. Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: Mark, where is this 46 feel here? I'm looking at these plans here, and I don't see any numbers that show 46 feel. Mr. Taormina: Its the setback of the building from Levan. Mr. Nowak just pointed out to me that it's not shown anywhere on the site plan, but it scales out to about 46 feel. Actually, I see a dimension here of 42 feel, but that's not the setback of the building, that's actually the width of the driveway. So add to that a few feet in either direction, and you have about 46 feel. So from the easterly most projection of the building where the bump -out is located to the right -0f --way, which is coterminous with the sidewalk, that setback is aboul46 feel. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay, and it should be 60. 21066 Mr. Taormina: It should be 60 only by virtue of the fact that this is considered the front yard given the narrower frontage along Levan as compared to Plymouth Road. Mr. Piercecchi: If the bump -out was eliminated, then it would probably meet it? Mr. Taormina: No, I dont believe so. I dont think the bump -out is 14 feel. Mr. Piercecchi: It looks like it's 13 feel or so? Mr. Choucair: Yes, 13 feel and inches. Mr. Taormina: The bump -out itself is? Mr. Choucair: No, not that bump -out. The island around the bump, it's 13 feel and inches by 63 feet to the back of the building. Mr. Piercecchi: There's the 14 feet then, isn't it? Mr. Choucair: The diameter is 9 feet. Mr. Piercecchi: That is one way to meet the 60 foot requirement. Mr. Choucair: Yes, but the conceptual idea of this building, the architectural work that was performed on this site to create traffic flow in terms of design ... when you're trying to meet that requirement and we're trying to put some nice design in there. So that's why we came out with this bump and the other canopy over the door so we would attract the eye on that corner. Mr. Piercecchi: I'm not questioning the design. I'm just staling that this will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and you may or may not be granted that 14 feet. Mr. Choucair: The 60 feel. Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. To gel to the 60, I'm just offering you some suggestions on ways to meet that. We can only approve it subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals granting you a waiver on that. I want you to know that. We cannot grant that here. That would be a Zoning Board of Appeals action. Mr. Choucair Forthe 60 foolvariance, right? Mr. Piercecchi: They could very well give it to you. I'm not saying they won't, but I'm saying that tonight here, if we grant approval to this, and 21856 we probably will because it looks like a very nice building, but our motion will be subject to approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Choucair: If they didn't approve us, we would have to cut the building down and move it. If they do, we go ahead. Mr. Pieroecchi: Well, whatever. That's something you negotiate with them. Ms. Smiley: I see you changed your driving patterns going in. Mr. Choucair: Yes, to make it more convenient, I put some cars in there so you can see exactly that these cars are going to go to the back and pull out. So we have 40 feet from where that car is parked on the left hand side, and parked in the front of the building, we have 20 feet over there, so that's enough space for any two cars to pull up. Ms. Smiley: That's a real improvement from what we saw the other evening. Mr. Choucair: I know. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. We appreciate it. Mr. LaPine: One of the points that the Inspection Department made is about the light posts that are in pretty bad shape. Are you going to replace all the light posts? Mr. Choucair: Yes. Even the approaches are going to be replaced because the tanks are going to be pulled out. So whatever you see on that site is going to be completely redone. Mr. LaPine: The second question I have, when this is completed, will it be a 24-hour operation? Mr. Choucair: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I, for one, have no problem with the lights because it's a 24-hour operation. I think the more lighting we have, the better chance we have of not having any car jackings and things like that. I think it's good for safety. The other thing I'd like to say, I am really enthusiastic about your proposal. This is the first gas station I've seen in all the years I've been around here that isn't four walls. I like the design, the bump -out, the way the front looks and everything. I think it's a unique design, something we 21857 don't have in Livonia for gas stations, and I commend you for doing such a lernfc job. I think it's a real good concept. Mr. Choucair: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Just a couple of minor questions as it relates to restroom facilities for your customers. Will it be a men and women or a unisex or how will that work? Mr. Choucair: Just a unisex restroom. probably if we need we can add one for the employees, a small one. But we have one handicapped unisex bathroom for the Subway customers. Mr. Morrow: Okay. If you think that's adequate, I dont have a problem with that. I assume you have free air there. You don't charge for your air? Mr. Choucair: I dont think so Mr. Morrow: Our ordinance precludes that. You have to give free air to your customers. Mr. Alanskas: Lel me ask you a question. Is this your first station or do you have other stations? Mr. Choucair: Myself? I have nothing. I onlydo blueprints. Mr. Alanskas: In these stations where you have a convenience store, is the main objective selling gasoline or having a convenience store? Mr. Choucair: Actually, both. Mr. Alanskas: I know you have both, but which one is your main thing? Mr. Choucair: Both of them, that's what I meant. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. The reason I'm asking is why do you need a building that big? It's 3,000 square feel for a convenience store. Mr. Choucair: In these days, we don't depend on gasoline anymore. We depend on the "C" store. Some days we depend on the gasoline but most of the time, you're making only pennies with the gas. The "C" store makes the most money. In this project, we're using 3,000 square feet for the "C" store and 1,000 square feet for the restaurant. 21656 Mr. Alanskas: Al this site, can people just pull in and pick up the pump and start pumping gas, or do they have to go in and give you the money first? Mr. Choucair: No. They have pumps with the latest technology. They have a credit card machine and everything. Mr. Alanskas: I mean some stations where you're paying cash, they make you go inside first. Mr. Choucair: Atter dark you have to go in and pay. Mr. Alanskas: I just wanted to make sure. It's a safety factor. That's all. Okay. Thankyou. Mr. Choucair: Atter dark only. Mr. Shane: See the parking spaces you have designated on the east side of the site as 15, 16 and 17? Mr. Choucair: Yes, sir. Mr. Shane: I hope there is employee parking in mind for those three sites because they're going to be a little difficult to gel out of. Mr. Choucair: It looks fight because I have the dumpster loading zone there. But there is enough space I think to back up because you have 45 feel. With 30 degrees or 45 angle packing, you would have like 17 feel, that would be approximately 20 feel of space. So that's more than enough I think. Mr. Shane: If I were you, I would impress upon the owner of this site that he ought to use those for employee parking. I'd designate it as employee parking because it's going to be a little difficult to get in and out. Thank you, sir. Mr. LaPine: I had the same concern Mr. Shane had, but I came to the conclusion that where you say "loading zone," that's where trucks are going to come and park and unload pop and potato chips. Mr. Choucair: Exactly. Mr. LaPine: So that space won't be taken all the time. Then when the garbage trucks come, they can pick up the trash. 21859 Mr. Choucair: Exactly. Mr. LaPine: So that space won't be occupied all the time. Mr. Choucair: The garbage pickup is going to be early in the morning or late afternoon. The guys that bring the chips or the groceries or the pop, they would be there about half an hour. They unload and then just lake off. Mr. Alanskas: In any station, you can only put outside something that is petroleum based. In other words, you can't store pop and chips outside in the driveway. It has to be windshield washer solvent or antifreeze. You're allowed to put that out there, but thafs about it. Mr. Choucair: We have enough storage inside this gas station that it will be more than enough to store things. Mr. Alanskas: You won't have any empty cases of pop outside waiting for pickup? It will all be inside? Mr. Choucair: No. It will all be inside. They will bring in the pop and take out the empties. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Seeing none, we will go the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? I see no one coming forward. Yes, Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina: I have a question to the petitioner regarding the light standards. Do we have a plan showing where the light poles will be installed? Mr. Choucair: Yes. We're going to have one near the dumpsler on the side. Next, down all the way to where the bushes are, in between the bushes. We have another there and there's another and we have one next to the other approach. Mr. Taormina: Could you describe the design of those lightfixtures? Mr. Choucair: They are going to be an L shape, and they are going to be brown or while in color or black. Mr. Taormina: A shoebox-type fixture? 21860 Mr. Choucair: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Our concern is that we have a shoebox style fixture or something that's a full cutoff so there won't be any light protrusion onto the neighboring properly to the south. We are a little uncertain relative to the design of those lights fixtures, but because this is immediately adjacent to a residenfial property, we thought that we better have something that has some type of a cutoff feature or can be shielded to prevent glare onto that adjacent properly. Secondly, with respect to the landscaping along the south side of the property, he has added a number of shrubs. We had requested that those be evergreen shrubs or trees, and I'm not sure whether or not your plan details the species of these. There's some confusion over that, but we were hoping that evergreen trees would be added along the south property line to supplement the Maple trees for some additional screening adjacent to the house back there. Mr. Alanskas: They're showing seven Maples. Mr. Choucair: There are 60 pieces. I don't have the chart in front of me, but we added another 15 in the back. Mr. Walsh: Could you tell us what species they are? Are they evergreens? Mr. Choucair: Some of them, like this one here. Mr. Taormina: What we would recommend, Mr. Chairman, is that the landscape plan be modified so as to show some full size evergreen trees along the south property line to supplement the screening back there. Mr. Walsh: Very good. Is there anything else, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No. Mr. Walsh: There was no one in the audience, so I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-147-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 16, 2004, on Petition 2004-10-02-33 submitted by Byblos General Contracting requesting waiver use approval to demolish an 21861 existing gas station and replace it with a new gas station and carry -out restaurant with seating at 36421 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Raleigh Avenue in the Northwest 114 of Section 32, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-10-02-33 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed Site Plan prepared by Byblos General Contracting, Inc., dated November 16, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan prepared by Byblos General Contracting, Inc., dated November 16, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, with the modification that additional evergreens be added along the south property line, and with the stipulation that the landscaping shown for the landscape area adjacent to the Plymouth Road right-of-way shall be in accordance with the Plymouth Road streetscape design plan formulated in connection with the PRDA Plymouth Road Beautification Project; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the Building Elevations Plan prepared by Byblos General Contracting, Inc., dated November 16, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full -face four -inch brick, no exceptions; 7. That the pump island canopy shall not exceed eighteen (18') feet in height, and the lights within the desk on the underside of the canopy shall be recessed in such a way lhalthe intensity ofthe illumination is decreased; 8. That the support columns of the pump island canopy shall be covered with the same brick used in the construction of the building; 21862 9. That all pole -mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and shall not exceed a maximum overall height of twenty (20') feet above grade; 10. That the three walls of the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gales, which shall be metal, shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 11. That the maximum number of customer seats in the carry- out restaurant shall not exceed 12; 12. That no outdoor storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site; 13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 14. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 15. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following items as outlined in the correspondence dated October 28, 2004: - That the existing prolective wall averages slightly less than five feet and will need to be raised to meet minimum standards; - That the plan shall be adjusted to show new light poles and new bases, all properly directed and shielded; - That the existing concrete approach on Levan shall be repaired; - That handicapped parking shall be provided as required; 16. That this approval shall incorporate the following recommendations of the Traffic Bureau listed in the correspondence dated October 15, 2004: 21863 - Installation of "no left turn' sign at the easternmost driveway exiting to Plymouth Road; - Installation of height signs for the canopy over the gasoline pumps; 17. That all rooftop -mounted mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view; 18. That this approval is conditional upon the petitioner being granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient building setback from the Levan Road right-of-- way line; 19. That all parking spaces within the site be double striped; and 20. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion on the motion? Ms. Smiley: I just want to compliment you on the nice job you did with the landscaping and following the Plymouth Road streetscape down Levan. It's very attractive. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. 21864 Mr. Alanskas: I'm just anxious for you to gel this thing going. After you go to Council, and I'm sure you'll gel approval, how long before you'll have this done? Mr. Choucair: When we get the permits, we'll start construction. Mr. Alanskas: You'll start even in cold weather? Mr. Choucair: Not really. This year is done. We will have to wail until April. Mr. Alanskas: So it will be June or July before you get it done? Mr. Choucair: Actually, we're trying to get it in April, so we can start. Mr. Alanskas: Really? Goodluckloyou. Mr. Choucair: Thank you. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2004-09-06-04 FENCES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 09-06-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #379-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.29 and 18.49 of Article XVIII of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to amend certain regulations pertaining to fences. Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment was initialed by the City Council. It amends Sections 18.29 and 18.49 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to fences. The proposed amendment to Section 18.29 would delete the reference to Section 5-1009 of the Code of Ordinances, as it relates to provisions that, in any RUF or AG district, fences may be constructed in the front yard of any lot. The proposed language amendment to Section 18.49, "Fences," will state that yards may be used for fences and similarslmctures as selforth in Chapter44 of Title 15 ofthe Livonia Code of Ordinances. In essence, what these amendments are doing is simply cross-referencing Chapter 44, which is the code which establishes all the regulations 21865 pertaining to fences. The thrust of the changes deals mainly with the required setbacks for fences on corner lots in residential zones, but that is not a part of our Zoning Ordinance standards. That is a separate chapter within the Code of Ordinances. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one in the audience, I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-148-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 16, 2004, on Petition 2004-09-06-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #379-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.29 and 18.49 of Article XVIII of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to amend certain regulations pertaining to fences, the Planning Commission does here recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-09-06-04 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment will provide consistency in the fence regulations between Sections 18.29 and 18.49 of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 44 of Ti0e 15 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances; and 2. That the proposed language amendment will provide consistency in the fence regulations between all single- family residential zoning districts. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the public hearing portion of this meeting. We will now proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in support or opposition to these items. Will the Secretary please read the next item? 21866 Y 1:4 1i E'd�9=k 1 It I D] C IUxN1_11! 11l =Fe691 Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a request for a one-year extension by The Village Shops of Wonderland East of all plans in connection with Petition 2003-09-08-24, which received site plan approval to construct a commercial development on properly located at 29859 Plymouth Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 35. Mr. Taormina: The petitioner is requesting a one-year extension of the approvals granted in connection with the development of Phase I East of the new commercial center to be located on a portion of the Wonderland Mall property. The City granted Site Plan Approval on November 5, 2003 (CR 582-03). In a letter dated October 19, 2004, the petitioner explains that due to "extenuating circumstances that have adversely affected the progress of the development of this project," they would not be able to begin before the expiration of City Council approval. That is the reason they're asking for the extension. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: I'd like to note for those watching on television that there is a companion request. Item 7 deals with a similar request for the Village Shops and that would be Phase I West. So we may have an opportunity to discuss both of them, but we will vole on them separately. Are there any questions for the staff before we go to the petitioner? Seeing none, I know Mr. Schoslak is in the audience. Bob Schostak, Schostak Brothers & Company, 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 750, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Schostak: There's probably a lot of questions, and maybe I'll help address some of those by a few remarks if I may. The Wonderland project is a project. It's taking far more time than we certainly anticipated. It's public knowledge that there's some litigation pending and that, of course, is causing us further delays. I comment to you that I've been in the business 28 years as of Iasi August. Most of those years I've been in front of this Board and the Council talking about Wonderland. So we know the properly well, as I know all of you do. I know it's a project, a properly of grave concern. It has great implications to Plymouth Road, the PRDA and the residents at large. We're very cognizant of it. The development business in itself, some of the projects you reviewed tonight, its a very lough, complicated 21867 business. Redevelopment, which is what we're contemplating, is even tougher. There's many, many hurdles: dealing with existing tenants, dealing with the anchor stores, underlying easements, community approvals, and on and on and on. In this situation, it became a greater challenge because all but one occupant has vacated the properly, that being Target. Target has objected and filed in federal court to slop us from proceeding with demolition of the mall and development of the shops along Plymouth Road much to our dismay, notwithstanding probably a year of discussion with them. Never did we expect it to be at this point where we are today. It could be resolved in three month; it could be a year. We don't know. The legal process is a complicated one. We're before the court not even as of this moment. Briefs are being fled; discovery is being done. As I'm sure many of you know, its a process. We hope to be in court during the first quarter of next year. During that process, we hope to have discussions and negotiations to resolve the matter, but who's to say. We just dont know. To extend us for a short period of time, which I know it's been discussed, really won't accomplish a whole lot except bring us back here again in a short time. I think a year is reasonable, and I'd ask you to please consider that. I'll answer whatever questions that I can, recognizing there are certain limitations because we are in litigation. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Schostak. Are there any questions? Mr. Piercecchi: Did you say, in the first quarter? Are you talking about March when you're going to be in court? Mr. Schoslak: We don't know the date. I said it could be the first quarter. The court has not set a date for a hearing yet. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Schostak, I was not on the Commission when this one came through, but I did kind of follow it on TV. So I'm not really up to speed, but I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous perhaps. I had the feeling that this was two stand-alone projects. I think your comments tonight are indicating that the Target litigation also impacts the shops along Plymouth Road. Mr. Schostak: We, too, shared that view, that it was two standalone projects. The Target litigation has entangled that portion which is along Plymouth Road. As a result, it being an item of the litigation, it is delayed. YSfiY:l Mr. Morrow: So that's what is holding you up? In other words, save that, would you be prepared to move forward on that project if it had not been tied up in litigation? Mr. Schoslak: Save the Target issue on it, we have leases ready to go to tenants and we were anxious to proceed. This is costing us serious money in time and delays. Mr. Morrow: That was one of the questions I had in my mind, thinking that it was a stand-alone item, and for some reason, you're holding it up separate from the litigation. But apparently the whole site is not tied up with the litigation. Mr. Schostak: Right. I'm referring to the Wonderland East portion. I'll address the Wonderland West portion separately. The Wonderland East portion is entirely bottled up in this Target litigation. We would have been under construction. We had tenants expecting to be open in 2004, fourth quarter, had we been under construction Iasi fall when we presented our plans. We've got a demolition permit. We've got demolition bids. We've got site work bids. We have site work design. We've got a lot of money in the ground without a lot to show for it. That, of course, is not your problem, but we were very serious about proceeding. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Maybe you can't answer this question, but as you read in the papers, there's a hint that Target is doing this because they're afraid that WalMarl may be coming to this site. If and when Walmarl did, would this be a larger store than is now on Middlebell? Mr. Schoslak: If Walmarl came to the Wonderland Center, would it be a larger store? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Mr. Schoslak: Walmarl is interested in the site. Okay, there's no question about that. Target is concerned about the entire site plan, which includes if Walmart were on the site, which is why they're litigating, tying up the whole site. I can't gel into the details on who thinks what and why, but to try and address your question about the square footage. If I understand this, is the square footage of the store that Walmarl would put on the Wonderland site larger than the other one? 21869 Mr. Alanskas: Yes Mr. Schostak: I suspect it is. I don't know the size of that store, but retailers are doing what they call right sizing their stores. Mr. Alanskas: Can you give us the square footage of the store they want to put at the Wonderland site? Mr. Schostak: I don't know it off hand. Sorry. Mr. Alanskas: You don't. All right, thank you. Mr. LaPine: When we originally heard this case, I was under the impression, that you were hoping to have these buildings occupied by November 1, 2004. The Plymouth Road buildings were going to be constructed. They had nothing to do with the buildings behind it. They were going to be tom down later with a fence around it while you were developing. I guess my question is, during that discussion, we talked about two big boxes going in there, the Walmart and something else. Where do you stand with the something else? Can that building be started? What I read in the paper is that the big hang-up with Target is that they figure Walmart is competition for them and they don't want the competition. Mr. Schostak: Well, there's a lot of things in the paper. Some of them are, frankly, quite accurately staled and others are perhaps more opinion by people's comments or what have you. But there is at this point not an additional store that we've identified successfully that has indicated they want to be there. We continue to believe there will be. Once the site gets under construction, it will create energy and interest, but at this point, there is nothing to report specifically. Mr. LaPine: Let's assume for a minute, and hope that it doesn't happen, you lose the case and Walmart doesn't come in. How is that going to affect the rest of the Plymouth Road deal when the leases that you lined up count on that big box going in there. Would that interrupt what's going to happen on Plymouth Road? Mr. Schostak: If Target is successful in blocking the development of the project and we can't tear down the mall, and we can't develop the shops out front, I'll be looking for razor blades. We can't lel that happen. We'll have to find a resolution. Its a complicated situation because of the easements and the rights that run through the property at the former Montgomery Wards stores. 21870 You'll remember that was a group that owned its own real estate. There's the mall property. There's the Target properly. There's the White Castle. There's the bank. It's complicated. That's why I say redevelopment is a complicated process. We will get development on that site. It's not going to slay the way it is. Will it happen in six months or 12 months? If this litigation goes on more than three months or six months or 12 months, no. It's going to be another cycle for us. Mr. LaPine: I was always under the impression that you never owned the Kmart site. You bought that when you bought Wards and the Wonderland site back. Why can't that site be developed atlhis time? That's not really any competition to Target. It's a separate parcel is it not? Mr. Schostak: Right. And that's why I was going to address West rather than East, but if they're one combined discussion, I'm happy to do that. Mr. Walsh: Why don't we do it all together? Mr. Schostak: Okay. Let's take a step back. We did acquire the rights to the Kmart property, the building and the land, separate from the Wonderland property, the mall property, let's call it, or the East property. We believed that we were on to a good thing with what we were talking about in the East section. Kmart went dark. We fell we would help the area and help attract more retailers to the area by controlling more real estate. If you recall, Kohl's was originally acquiring the real estate from Kmart. We were particularly excited about that. That would continue to bring more vibrancy to the area. Kohl's called us and said they didn't want to be on the East end of that property. If they acquired il, maybe they would come on the East side, go from East to West. It turns out they weren't really interested in being there at all, and they made us a satisfactory purchase agreement so we acquired their interest. When we brought the entire project to the City for review, everyone was obviously excited, as we were, because there was a complete redevelopment. It is two separate parcels, separate ownership at the time, now common ownership with us. We are working actively to start the Village Shops West and the Kmart building renovation now. If we can do that, not only would you like that, our banks would like that, and we would like that in turn. So we're actively pursuing that. We've got some of the Wonderland Shop East tenants that might shift into the shops on the west side now, and we're talking to them about that. 21871 We're talking to a single user that would use the entire Kmarl building once renovated. If we can put all that together in the next few months, we'll be back to the City asking for building permits and so forth. But we're not held up on the Kmarl property because ofthe Target litigation. Mr. LaPine: That was my concern. I knew Kmart was a separate parcel. I'm glad to hear you stale that. I'm very happy about that. Thank you very much. Mr. Shane: There is some concern among the Planning Commission that we may want to give you an approval for an extension for a shorter period of time than a year. Is it likely that by May you'll have something more to tell us? In other words, in six months are you going to have anything more to tell us than you do today? Mr. Schostak: Litigation lakes a lot of turns in the process. The judge reviews the case. He'll send a signal to the parties that he's feeling one way or the other. We expect or hope that there would be a signal in March by the end of the first quarter. We think that's reasonable, but because dockets are what they are, it could be April or May before we gel that signal. That's why I would really ask you to seriously look with us at these time frames. A one year period went by very quickly already. And what we're up against right now is something that could begin to move very rapidly or it could be not moving at all in March, April or May. That's nolwithin our control. What's within our control is thatwe lease the space. What's within our control is do we have a contract. Do we have the financing resources? Do we have the desire? We are lined up to go. This is not a good thing for us at all. With everything we have going on in our company, fortunately we have a pretty busy development schedule, this is our most significant issue to be focused on. So I don't know how to give you an accurate enough answer to say what it will be like in May when we sit here because I just cant predict it. All I can say is that I know you're interested in helping us gel this project going. The more support visibly that we have from the City of Livonia, the Mayor, the Council and all of you here, which has been phenomenal, the better. The more support we can show that this is project you want moving forward, it's an important subtle message that will be out there. I would encourage you to offer us that 12 -month period. 21872 Mr. Shane: Okay. We know that you're not going to be under construction in six months, but what we want to do is keep track of it, and that's why we suggested a six-month extension. Mr. Schostak: I'd be happy to revisit this with you if you want to hear from us informally or formally periodically. Mr. Shane: That's really what's behind the six months. Personally I have no problem with 12 months if I knew that you would do exactly what you said - that you'd come back from time to time and let us know what's going on. Mr. Schostak: I keep a very open line of communication with the appointed and elected officials of this community. I'd continue to do so, to pledge that to you. Mr. Shane: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: If I could just follow up on that question. I think your request is reasonable for the 12 months. What causes me pause, even in your own answers, at best what you're hoping for is a signal come this Spring. If I'm looking at the time limit on litigation, the best you can hope for then is some kind of a signal from the judge that you're moving forward aggressively. I mean you don't expect a judgment by that period. Mr. Schostak: I'm trying to not over -promise and under deliver. I'm not trying to be cute in anyway. I'm just puffing out as much as we know. Mr. Walsh: I'm not implying that. What I'm saying is I think you're being generous in pinning your hopes on that because its quite unpredictable. Mr. Schostak: Right. You know the papers gel filed. The next round and it's after Thanksgiving. It's in December. We're submitting this week some briefs. The judge could review them after Thanksgiving. We could gel a wink or signal to the parties in December. But we know it's Christmastime, so it will be January. January doesn't start in the courts until the second or third week. It will be February 1". If we haven't heard anything at all or he hasn't reviewed it until February 1st, then we may not gel that signal. When I say the signal, I mean the judge has reviewed the documents and has said to the parties (we're hoping) this Wonderland Mall is a failed concept and by all indications, it ought to go forward as something else. Guys, go in the room and work it out. 21873 Mr. Walsh: That may happen. All I'm trying to point out is, I appreciate your candor this evening. I don't think 12 months is unreasonable given the circumstances, particularly because of the City's history with Schostak. What I'm trying to drive home is my own belief that you have an unknown target here. Mr. LaPine: Just going one step further, let's assume whatever party wins or whatever party loses, there's always the possibility that they can appeal it. Is that correct? Which would put more time on gelling this through? Mr. Schoslak: That can happen. Mr. LaPine: That's the thing I guess we're all worried about. This thing would linger on maybe more than a year. It could linger on two and three years. Now if that happens, it hurls the City because of the tax dollars we're not getting. It hurls you because you're putting money out for attorneys and you're not gelling any money in. That's the worry I have. That's why we would like to keep a handle on this as close as we can to make sure you're doing everything you can to gel the project rolling and hoping that Target realizes this loo. Its at slake for them as much as for us because if they sit there all by themselves, they could die on the vine like anybody else. Mr. Schoslak: Right. And remember as well, and I'm sure you know this, is that this is not an option that we have acquired. We own the properly. We have got to put it to work. Mr. Morrow: By any stretch of the imagination, do you think a six-month time frame would help you in any way in the litigation in moving it forward in keeping with your timeframe? In other words, do you think the judge or the court would be sympathetic to that particular constraint? Mr. Schoslak: No, it wouldn't move his agenda at all. We're hoping the judge is going to look at the project and look at this great community and say we can't allow this to continue and we've got to get it worked out. Hopefully he will do it quickly, but I don't think the six or the 12 months is going to move it on his dockets or move his motions on it at all. Actually, its a good idea, but .... Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, it seems like discussion here has been limited to whether it's six months or a 12 -month extension. Would it make 21874 any sense, Mr. Chairman, if we approved a 12 -month extension with a six-month status report from these people here? Mr. Walsh: I'm sure we can condition it that way. Mark, do you happen to know if that's possible? Whether we do it formally or informally, I think we can certainly request that, and Mr. Schoslak has already indicated his willingness to comply. Mr. Piercecchi: Come to one of our study meetings in six months. Mr. Schostak: It wouldn't have to be an agenda item. I could just ask to give you a report. Mr. Piercecchi: You've heard our concerns. We're on your side. Mr. Schoslak: I know that. Believe me, I know that. Mr. Walsh: Mark, do you think it sufficient if we note it in our records tonight but not in our resolution? I'm not certain if we can put that into the resolution. Mr. Taormina: You could phrase it within the resolution, such that, after a six- month period, a status report be provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. Walsh: If we can do that, lets do it. Mr. Schoslak: We certainly don't object. Mr. LaPine: My only concern would be why give the Planning Commission the report? The Planning Commission is going to make a recommendation to City Council. I would think that's where the action should be taken. If you come back every three months or every six months, the Council may ask you to do that. It makes sense to me. Why come to us and then he has to go to the Council all over again. It makes more sense to work directly with the Council than it would be to work with us. Mr. Walsh: That's a good point. Mr. Morrow: I guessing now, but I would suspect that Mr. Schostak keeps a pretty open dialogue with the Mayor and with the City Council. We here at the Planning Commission may not be the benefactor of such communication. It would be nice for us to know what's going on also to keep us up to speed. 21875 Mr. Schoslak: Yes, I know you get a lot of questions from residents and so forth. I'd be happy to do it. Mr. Morrow: Just for our own information. I have a feeling you are communicating pretty much with the Council and Mayor on an on-going basis. Mr. Schostak: That's correct. Mr. Alanskas: I agree with Mr. LaPine. I think these progressive reports should go to the Council. We're just a recommending body, and I think from what Mr. Schoslak is saying, a one-year extension may not even be enough, and I don't think six months would be doing him or us any justice. I think we should give him the one- year extension and go from there and let him report to the City Council. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this agenda item? Good evening, sir. I saw you back there. I thought since you were so patient, we would invite you up. Berry Brim, 28419 Cleveland. I live just off of Plymouth Road and Harrison. After thinking my thoughts and hearing some things today, if you do give him the extension, I would say make sure that there is an end plan and that Wonderland doesn't turn into this boondoggle that large developments can turn into. Is Walmart the best that we could have done at Wonderland? I dont think so. Walmart came to the City and said they were going to improve the corner of Middlebell and k96 to make it look nice. Well, if you've been by that comer, you know it doesn't look very nice. So you're just going to move it down the road into the neighborhood. Now you've got another box to f11 at the corner of 1-96 and Middlebell. Yeah, Wonderland can be a great mall. There can be some really great stores there, but with Walmart going in there, I don't think that's the right thing to do. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here tonight. Are there any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-149-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-09-08-24 submitted by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc., on behalf of 21878 The Village Shops of Wonderland East, requesting a one-year extension of the site plan, which previously received approval by the City Council on November 5, 2003 (Council Resolution #582-03), in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial development on property located at 29859 Plymouth Road, on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Northeast'''/ of Section 35, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request by The Village Shops of Wonderland, in a letter dated October 19, 2004, for an extension of Site Plan Approval of Phase I East of the new commercial center to be located on a portion of the Wonderland Mall property, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #582-03 in connection with Petition 2003-09-08-24, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? I would like to thank Mr. Schoslak for being here and certainly we heard the plea that Mr. Brim spoke of earlier. We will continue our vigilance on the site. This does not change what we previously approved. It just gives them another year to develop in accordance with actions previously taken by this body and the Council. The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-09-08-25 WONDERLAND WEST Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a request for a one-year extension by The Village Shops of Wonderland West of all plans in connection with Petition 2003-09-08-25, which received site plan approval to construct a commercial development on properly located at 30255 Plymouth Road in the Northeast'''/ of Section 35. Mr. Taormina: The petitioner is requesting a one-year extension of the approvals granted in connection with the development of Phase I West of the new commercial center to be located on a portion of the Wonderland Mall property. The City granted Site Plan Approval on November 5, 2003 (CR 583-03). In a letter dated October 19, 2004, the petitioner explains that due to "extenuating circumstances that have adversely affected the 21877 progress of the development of this project," they would be unable to begin before the expiration of City Council approval. The letter does not mention when the petitioner believes the project would commence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the Kmart situation, could we gel that going in six months? You said that you were prepared to go with Kmart? Bob Schoslak, Schoslak Brothers & Company, 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 750, Southfield, Michigan 48075. We're working on a couple leases right now that would utilize the entire building. If we can gel those finalized, we believe in the next 30 - 45 days. Ask Mr. Zschering, what's our winter construction like out there? Do we have to wail until the frost is off the ground? Robert E. Zschering, Vice President, Schoslak Brothers & Company, 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 750, Southfield, Michigan 48075. No. What we would do is remodel the building interior and the exterior. So we couldn't quite finish off the exterior of the building due to winter conditions with the choice of materials and things like that, but we could do a lot of the work inside once we gel a lease on that. Mr. Alanskas: So possibly a six-month extension on this phase would put you in pretty good shape? You figure November, December, January, February, March, April, you can work on the inside and then get the outside done when the weather is warmer. Mr. Schoslak: The six-month permit here that we would be receiving is for the site plan, right? It's not for the construction permits. So as long as we've started on the site, we've fulfilled the permit regulations. Mr. Alanskas: Correct. Mr. Schoslak: Its certainly our goal since we're not affected by the former to get going just as quick as we can. The only thing that's going to slow us down is getting a lease executed. So if it's this body's preference to see if we can gel it going in six months, and then if not, come back and visit with you, we will. We will certainly go along with it. I don't know that it's set because we just can't control the outcome of leases. We feel pretty good about it, but nothing is for certain until they're signed. 21878 Mr. Alanskas: But if you do get the leases, Target would have nothing to do with stopping you to go ahead with that phase? Mr. Schostak: Correct. Mr. Alanskas: And you would prefer to sell have the one-year extension on this phase also? Mr. Schostak: That would be our preference. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I think Mr. Schostak has convinced me that he's as anxious as all of us to gel started and the amount of time we give him is really academic. I mean he'd be ready to go tomorrow if he could clear everything up because as he said, it would make him happy, his banks happy and everybody happy. So I don't have any problem with a 12 -month extension. Mr. Alanskas: Me neither. Mr. Walsh: Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-150-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-09-08-25 submitted by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc., on behalf of The Village Shops of Wonderland West, requesting a one-year extension ofthe site plan, which previously received approval by the City Council on November 5, 2003 (Council Resolution #583-03), in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial development on property located at 30255 Plymouth Road, on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell and Merriman Roads in the Northeast % of Section 35, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request by The Village Shops of Wonderland, in a letter dated October 19, 2004, for an extension of Site Plan Approval of Phase I West of the new commercial center to be located on a portion of the Wonderland Mall properly, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #583-03 in connection with Petition 2003-09-08-25, shall remain in 21879 effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #8 PETITION 2000-12-02-37 SHAY ESTATES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2000- 12-02-37 submitted by Victory Building Company requesting to revise the landscaping approved for the Shay Estates cluster housing development located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Parklane Drive and Fairway Drive in the Northeast % of Section 8. Mr. Taormina: On April 4, 2001, the petitioner received waiver use approval for the development of a nine -unit cluster housing development, which is known as Shay Estates. As part of the approval, one of the conditions specified that the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan would be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. The petitioner is now requesting approval to revise the landscaping. Modifications are proposed along the west side of the development at the rear of Units 1, 2 and 3. The plan that you see before you on the screen is the original approved landscaping, and although ifs a little difficult to bring up any of the details, the area we're looking at is really concentrated on the west side of the properties. These are Units 1, 2 and 3 going from north to south along the west side of the driveway. This is the landscape plan that he's requesting approval for. This is actually an "as built' landscaping plan. All of the units have been completed and what was originally shown as a low berm along the back of these units was eliminated at the request of the City Engineering Departmentfor purposes of drainage. There is a manhole that was built at the southwest comer of Building 3. It picks up drainage not only from the east and north, but also could potentially pick up some of the drainage from these residents along Parklane. For this reason, the City Engineer requested that the berm be removed from the plan. Instead, he has planted a number of pine trees that ran along the fence line. There is a six fool high solid obscuring fence that extends all the way from the southwest corner to the northwest comer. The other change was the elimination of a storm water detention basin. The original Y approved plan showed a small basin in the northwest comer, but because the site drainage could be accommodated by the main basin in the southeast comer, there was no need for this basin to be constructed. For that reason, the revised plan does not show the construction of that basin. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, I know Mr. Baki is in the audience. Sam Baki, on behalf of Victory Building Company, 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. The few items that we changed due to engineering purposes was the bene removal on the west side behind Units 1, 2 and 3. After we did the Planning approvals and we had the engineer start designing the property, they realized that the property to the west of ours, which is the existing homes to west, had a lower area. If we would have created any berm, the water would sit in that area. So we ended up designing that property accordingly. We look the berms out, and as you notice, we put the berm toward Seven Mile, which wasn't affected by any drainage purposes, and we opened up the west side of that property for that purpose. We did place a lot more trees than what we were supposed to between the berm on Seven Mile and in the backyards. Just an FYI on this whole development, we removed at least 10,000 cubic yards of dirt out of that property, so a berm, I would have put added in a heartbeat. I had plenty of dirt to do that. We just were requested by John Hill to take it off, and we did that. Thafs the whole reason we're submitting this to do it proper and finalize it. All the homes are done, except Unit 8, which is being completed within the next 30 days. The outside is done; the inside is not. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing no one in the audience, we can go straight to a motion. On a motion by Percecchi, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-151-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-12-02-37 submitted by Victory Building Company, requesting to revise the landscaping for the Shay Estates cluster housing development, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 4, 2001 (Council Resolution #215-01), on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Parklane Drive and 21881 Fairway Drive in the Northeast''/. of Section 38, be approved subject to the following condifions: 1. That the Landscape Plan, dated August 30, 2004, submitted by Sam Baki, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 5. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution #215-01, which granted approval for the construction of a planned residential development, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condifions. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolufion adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 893`d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 893 Id Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 12, 2004. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-152-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 893`d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2004, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 21882 AYES: Shane, Piercecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, Morrow, Smiley, 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 895th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 16, 2004, was adjourned at 9:59 P.M. ATTEST: John Walsh. Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary