HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-06-2822362
MINUTES OF THE 908"' REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 908" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
�G
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; AI Nowak, Planner IV; and Scott
Miller, Planner III; were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and tie 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 2005-06-0842 BRIGHTHOUSE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-06-
08-12, submitted by The Summit Company, on behalf of
Brighthouse Networks, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the office building located at
14525 Farmington Road in the Northeast%of Section 21.
22363
Mr. Miller: The pefifioner is requesting approval to construct a small
addition to the office building located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Lyndon Road and Five Mile Road.
Brlghthouse Network, formerly known as Time Warner Cable, is
the cable provider for the City of Livonia. Immediately to the
west of this properly is the senior living community known as
Silver Village. Adjacent and to the southwest of this property is
an office building occupied by a law firm. The proposed addition
would be constructed to the west (rear) elevation of the existing
building. The addition would be 1,276 square feel in size and
would be used to house computer equipment. The exisfing
building is 21,443 square feet in area. If approved, the size of
the office building would be increased to a total of 22,719
square feet. To make room for the proposed add -0n, the site's
existing trash dumpster enclosure would have to be relocated to
the west, where there is presently a row of parking spaces.
Three of those existing parking spaces would have to be
removed. Required parking for this site is 91 spaces; 230
spaces are available. Part of the reason for the abundance of
parking is to accommodate the Brlghlhouse fleet of
maintenance vehides. The rear area where the proposed
addifion is to be constructed has an exisfing prolective wall
along the south property line where it abuts the law office
building. The architecture and building materials of the
proposed addifion would match that of the existing office
building. All three sides of the addition would be constructed
enfirely out of brick, with the same configurafion of soldier
coarse along the bottom, middle and top sections of the walls.
Once completed, the existing building and the addition should
blend in and appear as if it were constructed at the same time.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 13, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time and the legal description is correct.
No additional right -0f -way is required." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 8, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition
to the office building located at the above -referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by
Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
22364
Inspection Department, dated June 21, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 3, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewe d. The following is noted.
(1) The parking lot double striping has wom off completely in the
areas near the customer entry east of the building. (2) A
minimum total of seven properly sized barrier free accessible
parking spaces with adjacent access aisles must be provided
with proper markings and signage. One of these must be van
accessible. The spaces are to be located closest to the
accessible entrance(s). This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. The final dem of
correspondence is from the Livonia Housing Commission, dated
June 23, 2005, which reads as follows: 'The Livonia Housing
Commission has been requested to comment on the petition by
Bright House Cable to construct an addition to the existing office
building located at the comer of Farmington Road and Lyndon
Avenue. The Bright House building is adjacent to the City of
Livonia's Silver Village senior citizen housing community. The
proposed addition on the west side of the building would place
the new construction closer to the Village and the buildings
refuse collector within 15' of the Silver Village property line. The
Housing Commission has analyzed the petition and discussed
the matter of site separation with the residents located in
buildings #1 through 3 especially as it relates to adequate
screening between the two facilities. The Housing Commission
supports the construction of a 6' brick wall along the property
line. The construction materials should match the existing wall
separating the legal offices from Bright House Cable. The
Housing Commission has no other concerns relative to the
construction of the building addition." The letter is signed by
James Inglis, Director of the Livonia Housing Commission. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Mr. Morrow:
Just a couple of minor pants. I'm assuming the new building is
going to have the entrance and exit within he existing building?
There will be no other doors on any other walls? Did I hear Mr.
Miller say that the three parking spots that exist in that area are
going to be deleted?
Mr. Miller:
That's correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that reflected in the parking provided?
22365
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
The 230?
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Louis Phillips,
Louis T. Phillips, Inc., 1348 East Indian Mound, Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan 48301. I'm the architect on this particular project.
Jerry Bell, The
Summit Company, 13191 Wayne Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far?
Mr. Bell :
We were curious on the screen wall ... the length of it and the
location. Did they want the entire property line covered?
Mr. Miller:
I think what they're talking about is this property line right along
here.
Mr. Bell :
Right, which is heavily treed. Is that the norllrsouth line?
Mr. Miller:
Yes, just that nortlrsouth line.
Mr. Bell :
Okay. Sixfool high.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. La Pine:
Maybe you can't answer this but I'm just curious. You know
where you have the big satellite dishes in the back? Now with
technology changing, will those dishes be there forever? I know
the residents don't like the idea of the dumpster where it is. If
those satellite dishes were ever eliminated, the dumpster could
be moved back.
Mr. Bell :
There would be no access to it then.
Mr. Phillips:
It would be very difficult for the garbage truck to pull in and turn
around.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. I just thought that might be a solution. I think that was
their biggest concern. How often is that dumpster emptied?
22366
Mr. Bell:
I dont know. It's only a six yard, eight yard dampsler. Probably
two or three limes a week, I would imagine. That's the only
dumpster on site.
Mr. LaPine:
I assume from the comment you made asking about the brick
wall that Brighthouse has agreed now to put up the wall. Is that
correct?
Mr. Bell
We never received a letter on the brick wall. That was the one
letter we didn't receive. So we're going to have to go back to
them and get them to approve that before we proceed with the
peril. We're not going to do anything unless they approve that
extra work.
Mr. Shane:
That area is quite heavily treed if I recall.
Mr. Bell
Yes.
Mr.Shane:
So that if you...
Mr. Bell
We'd lose the trees most likely to putthatwall in.
Mr. Shane:
That was what I was getting at.
Mr. Bell
It might be a landscape barrier.
Mr. Shane:
There is a decorative fence that occurs next to the northerly
parking lot on the east -west direction on the bottom picture
there. Would it be possible to construct something of that sort?
Mr. Bell
Next to the parking lot, you mean?
Mr. Shane:
No, in the area that we're talking about. A fence like that as
opposed to a masonry wall where you wouldn't need footings
and whatnot. That's another option I would think.
Mr. Phillips:
Could we pull it away from the property line so that we don't
proceed to cut any trees down, just move @ back five feet toward
our side?
Mr. Shane:
I think something like that or additional landscaping because I'm
afraid that the wall, as you said, is going to take a lot of trees
down and then we would have accomplished nothing really.
22367
Mr. Bell:
And they're pretty mature trees, too. I hate to see trees go
when you can save them. Maybe add some more trees in that
area too to help.
Mr.Shane:
Just some food for thought.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a comment as we're on this subject is I wouldn't like to see
trees lost. I like the fact that all the parking has now been
removed back there, which will mitigate a lot of the noise to the
residents. If a satisfactory alternate fence could be established,
I woukl be in favor of that to help screen it from the residents.
But by the same token, it might mitigate some of the noise that
comes from the site. The only thing now would be the
dumpster, and I'm sure we'll regulate the hours of pickup so
they don't confli ct with the sleeping hours.
Mr. Alanskas:
On the dumpster, you have here on your notes that you're going
to have brick on both sides of the wall of the enclosure, but what
about that back wall?
Mr. Bell
No, on the three sides.
Mr. Alanskas:
All three sides. Because it says two sides.
Mr. Bell
No three sides.
Mr. Alanskas:
It will be three sides. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Can we go back to that one picture. That's what the people
from Silver Village see?
Mr. Phillips:
Yes.
Mr. Bell
That truck there is probably about the location of the dumpster.
Mr. Phillips:
Those three cars are going to be avoided and that's where the
dumpster is going to be.
Mr. Bell
The dumpster is basically part screening also.
Mr. Phillips:
The dumpster is right infront ofthat truck.
Mr. Bell
It will be.
Mr. Phillips:
Originally, now, but itwill be in thattruck location.
22368
Ms.
Smiley:
I would think that what the Housing people were talking about is
probably the noise and that's not very pretty. The trees that
you're talking about, those don't look too healthy. Maybe that
bottom one is not a good picture.
Mr.
Bell
The branches just died off down low.
Ms.
Smiley:
But the rest of the tree is all right?
Mr.
Bell
Seems to be.
Ms.
Smiley:
Its not one of those lovely Ash trees that I have?
Mr.
Bell
No, its an evergreen, I think.
Ms.
Smiley:
So you were talking about putting up more of a decomtive
fence. Does that work much for the noise barrier or not?
Mr.Shane:
My idea was to do that and/or additional landscaping.
Ms.
Smiley:
The fence plus additional landscaping.
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Ms.
Smiley:
The decorative one plus additional landscaping instead of a six
foot brick wall.
Mr.
Shane:
Yes, ifthere's room for additional landscaping.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I don't know why we're discussing different types of fencing
here. I mean, I guess everything is on the table. But the
Housing Commission here has requested the six foot brick wall
along that property line. In study, we thought that was a pretty
good idea. In fad, we wanted our staff to look into it to make
sure we were on the right road. I think that we should comply,
really, with the six fool brick wall along the property line, and the
motion that we asked the staff to put together, number 8,
specifies a six foot wall similar in appearance to the one along
the south property line, and that makes sense as the same type
of material in the wall. It seems to me that's a better match.
Although I do like plastic fencing, but in this case, I don't think
we should change the materials in regard to screening.
Mr. Morrow: I agree with Mr. Piercecchi 100 percent with one exception
Was the Housing Commission aware of the trees, the loss of
trees? Were they aware of that when they made that decision?
22369
The reason I ask, I want to make they sure they understood that
if we approved the wall, and subsequently by Council, that they
are aware that the pine trees might be removed.
Mr. Taormina:
Maybe to resolve this issue, we could specify the brick wall, but
in lieu of a brick wall, if its determined to be acceptable by the
Housing Commission, due to the potential loss of those trees,
that a six fool high obscuring vinyl dad fence could be
substituted for the masonry wall. This way it provides the visual
screen that the brick would provide but it would require much
less disruption to the area.
Mr. La Pine:
When I looked at this site, and I'm not sure where Brighthouse's
property ends and where Silver Village begin, but it seems to
me, most of the trees were on the Silver Village property. The
brick wall would be basically on the property line but you could
bring it in a little so it's all built on your property; therefore the
trees may not have to be eliminated, or only part of the trees
may need to be eliminated. Is that possible?
Mr. Phillips:
Sure.
Mr. Bell
With evergreens though, they spread out; they don't have cap
roots, so it depends on how big they gel the farther out the roots
go. So even if you're 8 - 10 feel away from them, you might be
damaging trees on the adjacent properly.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess I kind of agree with Mr. Pieroecchi. The Housing
Commission looked at this. Mr. Inglis, who is out there all the
time inspecting buildings, he knows where those trees are. He
signed this letter so I have to assume he agrees the wall is more
important than the trees. If the trees are going to have to go,
that I do not know because like I say, I couldn't tell exactly
where the property line is.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I do care about trees but if we're so concerned about the trees,
why cant we stipulate that any trees that are lost in this process
be replaced? Will that solve the problem?
Mr. Walsh:
Well, they may be on the Silver Village properly.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I dont think they are. We've got a solution looking for a problem
here.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Shane may have a point.
22370
Mr. Shane:
The only problem I have with that is, it's going to lake a while to
replace those trees. These are mature trees. Sure you can
replace them, but theyre not going to look like they do now. I
like Mr. Taormina's suggestion that if the Housing Commission
understands the problem of losing trees and that doesn't bother
them, then they'll probably stick with their original letter. But if it
does, then they may agree with Mr. Taormina and put a different
kind of a banner there. That would be my position.
Mr. Phillips:
Can we meet with the Housing Commission out at the site and
go over it?
Mr. Walsh:
Assuming this moves forwards, if Mr. Taormina's suggestion is
accepted by the majority of the Planning Commissioners, you
would have the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Phillips:
It's easier if they go out and look at it. We can explain to them.
We put it on the property, some trees may be gone or they may
not be there, you know. Or we can put a decorative fence or we
can add more shrubbery or whatever, and then we can go along
with that program too.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcratt, Livonia, Michigan 48150. The only item I
would like to address is somebody suggested that perhaps the
wall be placed off of the property line. When you get in an
adverse position and all these things of occupancy, I would say
that should not even be a consideration. It either is one the
property or not at all. You're almost limiting the use of the land
if you move it in and you would lose title, went to sell it, you'd
have an encroachment. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Unless there are additional comments, which
certainly can be made, or questions to be asked, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion
by Pieroecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#06-68-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-06-08-12,
submitted by The Summit Company, on behalf of Brighthouse
Networks, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
22371
construct an addifion to the office building located at 14525
Farmington Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 21, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated June 1, 2005,
prepared by Louis T. Phillips, Inc., is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. That the Extenor Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2
dated June 1, 2005, prepared by Louis T. Phillips, Inc., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the back used in the construction shall be full -face 4
inch brick;
5. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
6. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
7. That the emptying of the trash dumpster(s) for this site
shall be limited between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Monday though Friday;
8. That a six (6) fool high back prolective wall, similar in
appearance to the one along the south property line, shall
be erected along the section of the west property line
immediately adjacent to the approved addition; however, if
R is determined that a masonry wall would result in the
likely destruction of the existing trees in the area, that a six
(6) foot high vinyl obscuring fence may be used in lieu of
the wall subject to the approval of the Housing Commission
and Inspection Department;
22372
9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated June 21, 2005;
10. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition;
11. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the buikling permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there support?
Mr. Shane:
I'll support that with a change to Item #8 whereby we approve
either a prolective wall or another type of fencing, providing the
Housing Commission goes along with it or whatever the
language was that Mark suggested. You know what I'm saying?
I'd like to give them some opportunity.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes, I understand that, but to me, it is meaningless because we
got the letter from the Housing Commission requesting a six fool
brick wall.
Mr. Shane:
I understand, but I'm not sure they really understand the
ramifications of that wall. So I would like to give them another
chance to look at it, with language similar to what Mark said a
little while ago. Mark, can you give us the language the way
you stated it?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'll accept that but ... so be it. It you want to leave it up to the
people that really are going to be affected, I guess I can find no
fault with that, but I was under the impression that it was kind of
cast in cement that they wanted a brick wall.
Mr. Walsh:
Then Mr. Piercecchi, would you be willing to amend the
resolution?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
So Item #8 would stand as is with the addition of language
reflecting the ability for the petitioner to meet with the Housing
22373
Commission and derive a different solution. That would be the
amendment.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If they wish a different solution.
Mr. Walsh:
Yes. Right.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay.
Mr. Shane:
Dan, if theyre adamant about the prolective wall, I won't have
any problem with it.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
After all, they are the ones that are affected by it.
Mr. Walsh:
So we have that motion on the floor, with a second by Mr.
Shane.
Mr. Morrow:
I have one comment, Mr. Chairman. Like I said earlier, I jrst
want to make sure, because you know Jim is a tremendous
Housing Commissioner, but I'm not sure how much he knows
about landscaping and saving trees. So the wall can be in there
without losing the trees, but he should be aware that tentatively
that could happen and get his reaction tothat.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just think that Mr. Inglis wants to make sure that there's less
noise. That's probably why he wants to put the wall in, but if like
Mr. Shane says, if they go out there and see that there could be
a lot of trees taken down, and with the wall and no trees, you
would have more noise. I'm sure the Housing Department
would go along with just putting in a fence and more
landscaping. Thankyou.
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 2006-2077 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Capital
Improvements Programs foryeam 2006-2011.
Mr. Taormina: The Planning Commission is charged with the responsibility of
preparing and adopting a Capital Improvements Plan. This
document serves primarily as a financial planning tool. It
provides a list of each City Department's anticipated capital
22374
expenditures over a six-year period and identifies the estimated
cost as well as potential funding sources for each project. The
Capital Improvements Plan can be used to assist the Mayor and
City Council in the annual preparation and approval of the
budget. And by projecting the City's capital expenditure needs
for the ensuing six year period, it can serve as an effective
planning tool to help prioritize and coordinate projects, as well
as determine our future funding capacity and the likely impacts
that will occur if critical projects confinue to be put on hold. The
Capital Improvements Plan outlines a schedule of public service
expenditures through the year 2011. It includes both smaller
recurring capital expenditures, such as computer hardware,
vehicles and equipment, as well as large, physical
improvements that are more permanent in nature, such as the
construction of new public buildings and infrastructure.
Preparation of the Capital Improvements Plan is done under the
authority of the Municipal panning Commission Act (PA 285 of
1931). It serves as a tool for implementing the Master Plan in
the sense that it provides a mid-range planning document for
improvements such as major road construction, sewer and
water line construcfion and maintenance, park and open space
improvements, improvements to police and fire facilities, City
building improvements and continued improvements to the
Greenmead Historical Village. We hope to have the Planning
Commission approve the Capital Improvements Plan so that it
may be transmitted in its final form to the Mayor and Council.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff regarding this document?
Mr. LaPine: I went through this thing and I admit I didn't go page by page,
word for word. The more I got into it the more confused I got.
To be honest, I dont know what I'm approving here. Half of the
sluff I looked at, 90 percent I'll never see come to pass, I
believe. As far as I'm concerned, let's pass it on to whomever
we have to pass it on to, and hope and pray that some of these
things get done. The only way they're going to get done is if we
have a big pile of money come from heaven and drop at our
feet, otherwise half of these things are never, never going to be
done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, I was going to mention that I thought it was a well
done document. There's certainly much in that document that
this body would not have reason to know or pass on. It's a
much more comprehensive document that I'm certain the
Council will look at, but for those items that we are interested in,
I thought you did a fine job. Just based on some of the
22375
knowledge I have from my prior service on the Council, I think
this is probably the most comprehensive document I have seen
in the service to the City that I've had. It covers everything.
And Mr. La Pine is right. It's going to be expensive and some
things may or may not come to pass, but if we don't plan for
them, they certainly will never come to pass. So my
compliments to your Department for putting this together.
Mr. Taormina: Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh: Any additional comments?
Mr. Alanskas: Just to go a little further, I think that the Mayor and all our
departments did a great job because, like Mr. La Pine says, half
the things on that document is a wish list and if the City can
afford to do those things, we certainly will to make this City
better, but a job well done. Thank you.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
resolved that
#06-69-2005 WHEREAS, pursuant to stale law, the City Planning
Commission is responsible for the preparation of a Capital
Improvements Program for the ensuing six years; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 - 2011 Capital Improvements Program,
prepared through a joint effort of several City departments, has
been submitted to the City Planning Commission for
consideration; and
WHEREAS, a duly -noticed City Planning Commission public
meeting was held on June 28, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements Program presents a
realistic program to aid in the determination of a complete fiscal
planning strategy for the City of Livonia; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission stands ready to do
all things necessary to cooperate with the Mayor and City
Council in maintaining a functioning program of capital
improvements and capital budgeting for the City of Livonia;
therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission hereby
adopts the 2006 - 2011 Capital Improvements Program; and
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission
recommends the City Council adopt this Capital Improvements
Program and use it as a guide to funding priority capital projects
with the program.
22376
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 Miscellaneous Site Plan section
of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item
section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at
length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary
please read the next item?
Y1=lAi Eiir19=k iYOle] 7 W1111arkEQ--ErS-N=kfill 191Ly=[�
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
03-06-01,
00503-06-01, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #137-05, 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
Section 11.03(p) of Article XI of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to give the Planning Commission and City Council
additional authority to regulate new retail uses in excess of
30,000 square feet.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, It
was
#06-70-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 200503-06-01, submitted by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #137-05,
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 Section 11.03(p) of Article XI of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, to give the Planning Commission
and City Council additional authority to regulate new retail uses
in excess of 30,000 square feet, be removed from the tabled.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Is there anything to add, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: Other than the fad that we've prepared the requested
resolution, no.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions or comments from the Planning
Commissioners?
22377
Mr. Morrow: One of the things that I had said prior to tabling, was the staff
able to uncover any other community that had anything
approaching this ordinance or change to the ordinance?
Mr. Taormina: We did attempt to find other communities with a similar type of
language in their ordinances. We could not find any.
Mr. Morrow: So we will have no benefit of their experience one way a the
other?
Mr. Taormina: That's correct
Mr. La Pine: I've read this thing over a couple times now, and I've come to
the conclusion that what we're doing here, I don't think is really
proper. I question if it's legal, but I'm not an attorney so I have
to assume the City Attorney knows what he's doing. Secondly, I
question the fact we arbitrarily say a 30,000 square fool
building. Why dont we use 25,000, 20,000 or 10,000 or 15, 000
or whatever? And thirdly, I think we're sending the wrong
message to the community and to builders or retailers that want
to move into this town, that you can come in here, but if you
empty a building of certain square footage, then you have to re -
rent that building before you move out. I think that's sending the
wrong message. We want businesses to come in here. We
want to do everything we can to encourage them, and I think
this ordinance does just the opposite of what I think they hope
it's going to do. Therefore, I'm willing to make the motion to
deny this.
On a motion by La Pine, and seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, 0
was
#06-71-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-03-06-01,
submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #137-05, 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 Section
11.03(p) of Article XI of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
give the Planning Commission and City Council additional
authority to regulate new retail uses in excess of 30,000 square
feel, be denied forthe following reasons:
1. That the current language of Section 11.03(p) of the
Zoning Ordinance provides for adequate regulation and
control of retail uses in buildings in excess of 30,000
square feel of floor area;
22378
2. That it has not been established that there is a need for the
proposed language amendment; and
3. That the proposed language amendment would
unnecessarily reshict and impede the movement of
businesses occupying large retail sales buildings in
Livonia.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any further discussion on the motion?
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague, Mr.
La Pine. My comments from he public hearing regarding this
matter still stand, and I request they be incorporated by
reference into the minutes of this meeting.
(The following are Mr. Piercecchi's comments from the Public
Hearing held on May 20, 2005)
Mr. Chairman, when 1 first read this and looked at it, 1 wrote
some notes, and 1 will read them to you. It starts out
saying that it is my understanding that this petition revolves
around empty commercial sites and would make the
relocation of an existing Livonia business to another
Livonia site, which was newly constructed to accommodate
said transfer, a variance item which would require public
hearings and Council approval. It would limit its scope to
buildings in excess of 30,000 square feet and require
assurances that the move would not result in an empty
building at the previous location. Frankly, 1 question the
wisdom of going forward with this action, especially
approving it. Tabling it perhaps for more discussion.
Although 1 realize the intent of this proposal is to minimize
the number of empty commercial buildings and sites,
especially in regards to large buildings, it is out of character
for Livonia. This legislation would target sites solely on
their square footage, square footage that currently is
associated in particular with big box discount outlets.
Although the cause is noble since empty big boxes are the
most difficult to revitalize, it is discriminatory, anti -business
and contrary to the way we do business in Livonia. 1 am of
the opinion this proposal will not stop movement or prevent
an empty building, but will result in law suits and the
business leaving Livonia to build their new facility in
another city. In addition, and 1 will close with this remark, it
is redundant since 11.03(p) provides adequate regulation
22379
and control of retail sale uses in excess of 30,000 square
feet.
Mr. Shane: I too support what Mr. La Pine says. I certainly don't want to
place any more barriers on prospective building users than they
already have. I just can't see the purpose of this ordinance, and
I'm certainly not going to vote for it.
Mr. LaPine: Do you want me to read the denying resolution or just lel it go.
Mr. Walsh: We should read it into the record.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is canned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2001 -05 -PL -01 ROSATI
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2001-
05 -PL -01, submitted by Rosati Industrial Subdivision, requesting
Final Plat approval for Rosati Industrial Park proposed to be
located on the west side of Stark Road between SchoolcmR
Road and Plymouth Road in the South one-half of Section 28.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, do you recall if we tabled this or is this simply a
pending item?
Mr. Taormina: Final plats typically appear as a pending item, but the final plat
was not presented previously to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything to report on this before we go to the petitioner?
Mr. Taormina: The Final Plat of Rosati Industrial Subdivision, which consists of
15 lots all fronting on an easttwesl street that extends west from
Stark Road and ends in a cul-de-sac, is substantially in
conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat. Although the
Preliminary Plat had consisted of 18 lots, the number of lots has
been reduced to 15 in order to provide an area for storm water
detention in the northeasterly portion of the site. This area is
designated as "Rosati Park' on the Final Plat, and the notation
states that 'the entire park is subject to private easement for
storm water drainage and detention." In addition, there were
some slight adjustments to some of the side lot lines. Other
than these changes, the plan is essentially the same as the
Preliminary Plat. The communication received from the
Engineering Division indicates that all financial assurances
22380
required for the subject subdivision have been deposited with
the City Clerk. Also, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
Final Plat and is recommending approval.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the stair?
Mr. LaPine: Mark, we're only talking about the industrial area. The R-5 that
we approved, that's still pending. Is that correct? So that will
come back to us eventually?
Mr. Taormina: That's correct.
Mr. Walsh: I know we have a couple of representatives here. Mr. Roskelly?
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia, Michigan 48150. My only comment
would be that the reason for the less number of lots is over this
period of the last three years, the Wayne County debacle over
the storm water management program caused this tremendous
delay, along with the fact that we had to take two, three less
lots. Other than that, I'd be here to answer any questions. I
think we accomplished everything we have to by virtue of the
Plat Act.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I have just one question for Mr. Roskelly. Normally, when you
come here, you make long speeches.
Mr. Roskelly: Well, it's a short meeting. Far be it from me to extend it.
Mr. Alanskas: Now that you finally have this storm detention taken care of,
you're three lots less. Will you be having the same problem with
the R-5 as far as water retention?
Mr. Roskelly: On the residential?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Roskelly: That will be handled in that...
Mr. Alanskas: Will you have to reduce the lot sizes there too?
Mr. Roskelly: Whether it's the lot size ... we will either go underground or
have an area that would be proper for the engineering and
Wayne County.
22381
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Roskelly:
You're welcome.
Mr. Taormina:
There are two items of correspondence that should be read
those into the record. I would also like to indicate that induced
in your packet this evening are the Building and Use
Restrictions that were requested as part of the resolution
approving the Preliminary Plat. The Staff has had a chance to
go over those. We find those acceptable, and they do comply
with the ordinances of the M-1 District. There would be one
slight change to the restrictions that we would like to see, and
that would be provisions with respect to compatibility of light
fixtures within the approved park.
Mr. Walsh:
Do you want to read the correspondence into the record, Mr.
Nowak?
Mr. Nowak:
There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 23, 2005, which reads as
follows: This office recommends Final Plat approval of the
above -referenced plat. "Pursuant to Council Resolution #126-
03 dated March 26, 2003, the attached letter dated August 6,
2003, to the City Clerk, all financial assurances are now in place
to complete the work required by the developer." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Sdiron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
item from the City Clerk's Office, dated August 7, 2003, whidi
reads, "The financial assurances required for the above -
referenced subdivision have been deposited with this Office and
this matter may now be considered for Final Plat approval." The
letter was signed by Joan McCotter, City Clerk. Those are the
two items of correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions or comments?
Mr. Alanskas:
On the loading zones, are there going to be any restricted hours
for when these companies can load or unload?
Mr. Taormina:
That is not included in the Building and Use Restrictions. That's
something that we can certainly talk with the developer about. If
you can recall, the design of this plat . some of these
buildings will adjoin the residential phase of the development.
In those cases ...
Mr. Alanskas:
We're worried about noise.
22382
Mr. Taormina:
You'll have an opportunity to review the site plans for those
buildings that are adjacent to the residences.
Mr. Afanskas:
We will?
Mr. Taormina:
And its at that time that we can address the issue of loading, off
loading, and hours of operation. I would also like to suggest,
and unfortunately I haven't had a chance to discuss this with Mr.
Rosati, the provision that restricts the loading areas to the side
and the rear. I'm not sure if he should completely preclude front
loading from the Park. So that might be an opportunity
for an
amendment he might want to make to the restrictions.
Mr. Alanskas:
But we will make sure that noise is to the minimum for the
residents. Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, I just want a clarification. You talked about these lights.
You want them all to be the same. Is that what you said?
Mr. Taormina:
Because this is an industrial park, he has the ability to control
certain site elements and features. Lighting should be one of
them. The same types of light standards, same height, those
details I think provide consistency throughout the Park.
Mr. La Pine:
Are you talking about street lights, lights on the building, lights in
the parking lot?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, all exterior lighting for the parking and loading areas.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
And you want him to come back?
Mr. Taormina:
No, I dont think that's necessary. I just think he needs to
amend the Building and Use Restrictions to include language
regardinglhe Iighlstandards.
Mr. Roskelly:
Regarding the restrictions, normally in the City of Livonia
building restrictions are not required in subdivisions. In dealing
with Mr. Taormina, we agreed that because its an industrial
subdivision, we encourage the idea that we would proceed and
record the restrictions along with the Plat. That is normally not
done in the City of Livonia, but we're more than happy to do it in
this case for the protection of the owner as well as the occupant
and the City. Thank you.
22383
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions regarding this item? There are no
remaining folks in the audience, so we need not defer to them.
Is there a motion?
On a motion by Smiley, and seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#06-71-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001 -05 -PL -01
requesting Final Plat approval for Rosati Industrial Park located
on the west side of Stark Road between SchoolcraR Road and
Plymouth Road in the South 1/2 of Section 28, be approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the Final Plat is in compliance with the Preliminary
Plat;
2. That no City Department has objected to the approval of
the Final Plat;
3. That all financial assurances required by the City have
been deposited with the City Clerk; and
4. That the Building and Use Restrictions be revised to
include general standards for all exterior light fixtures in
order to provide consistency throughout the industrial
subdivision.
Ms. Smiley: Mark, how should the language for Item 1W read? That the
Building and Use Restrictions be amended to include
compatibility of lighting?
Mr. Taormina: That's fine. We'll modify the language so that it's acceptable.
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 has been a long time coming, Mr. Rosati. I
wish you good luck.
Mr. Roskelly: I have one more comment. If you notice your copy of the Plat
shows Mrs. McCotter as secretary indicating how long this has
been in the works. We will alter that and certainly apologize to
Val Vanderslool.
Mr. Walsh: Thankyou.
22384
ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 907' Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes ofthe 907"' Regular Meeting held on June 7, 2005.
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Shane, and adopted, ilwas
#06-73-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 907" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on June 7, 2005, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, Smiley
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Morrow, Walsh
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 908"' Regular
Meeting held on June 28, 2005, was adjourned at 820 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman