HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-03-0723052
MINUTES OF THE 921"PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 7, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 921�r Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Robert Alanskas, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Memberspresent: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
C. Daniel Pieroecchi H. G. Shane
Members absent: Carol Smiley, John Walsh
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Ms. Debra
Walter, Clerk -Typist II, and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor, were also
present.
Acting Chairman Alanskas informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's
agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation
to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the
final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their 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 2006-01-02-01 BLUE RHINO -TAPPER
Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda,
Petition 2006-01-02-01, submitted by Blue Rhino -Tapper
Propane requesting waiver use approval to place a propane
cylinder exchange rack on the exterior of the existing building at
19100 Farmington Road (Rich Gas Station), located on the east
side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Clanta
Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 10.
23053
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 30, 2006, 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 coned." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated February 28, 2006, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to place a propane cylinder exchange rack on the
exterior of the existing building on property located on the east
side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita
Avenue in the Northwest X of Section 10. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations:
Exchange rack needs proper vehicular protection. Appropriate
sized and spaced bollards are required." The letter is signed by
Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated February 1, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal by Blue Rhino Propane located at 19100 Farmington
Road. We have no objections orrecommendatlons to the plans
as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated February 3, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of January 16, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The locked stooge unit(s) must be a minimum of 20 feet
from the building entrance and also the fuel dispensing pumps.
(2) As proposed, protective bollards or guard posts must be
installed. (3) The following items need attention on this site: (a)
Fascia needs recoating. (b) There is an unenclosed dumpster
on the site. (c) The parking lot needs repair, resealing and
double striping including proper signage for the barrier free
parking. (d) East will is missing trim and weather coating. (e)
There is an existing ice machine outside on the north wall. (f)
The 'free' air at this station requires a payment of 50 cents or
'go in and see cashier.' (g) The pump island bases need
recoating. (4) The approval of this request will require a super
majority affirmative vote from Council (5 of 7 approval votes).
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The
23054
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Morrow:
The tankard trucks that pull in, is it indicated on the plan where
they service and fill the tanks?
Mr. Taormina:
Its in the northeast comer of the site, generally in this location
as I'm showing on the overhead if you can see that. This is
where the underground storage tanks are located. So,
presumably the trucks that pull into the area to fill those are
located somewhere in this area.
Mr. Morrow:
I just wanted to make sure that where they put the hose in to fill
the tanks is outside the 20 feet.
Mr. Taormina:
I cannot confirm that with this information.
Mr. Morrow:
Maybe the petitioner could answer that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Would you please come
forward and stale your name and address?
Bryan Gardiner,
Blue Rhino -Tapper Propane, P.O. Box 519, Paw Paw, Michigan
49079. We are the number one largest retailer out there
nationwide. Since Blue Rhino has been in existence, we've
never had a major issue relevant to the propane for explosion
purposes. We've had buildings bum down, but the propane has
never caused the issues relevant to that. We're looking to place
the propane at this location because we've had a lot of calls for
it within the community. Speedway is one of those folks that's
looking to have the propane. They do have that naturally
through their industry at the other Speedway locations. We do
have state-of-the-art cages that we put out there. They're brand
new. So cosmetics, they're stale of the art. They're very nice
looking. Signage is up to code by international fire codes, and it
indicates pricing on the cage itself. Other than that, its the
convenience of the individuals coming through to exchange an
empty tank for a full one versus that individual going to a filling
station, which depending on the locations of filling stations
around here, or the individuals having to go out of your own
community to purchase this. Propane has grown over the
years. We're seeing an increase pretty much on almost like a
10 percent every year, nationally, that propane is a widely used
industry out there now that uses propane.
23055
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. Are there any questions from the commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
I'd like to follow up with what I asked the Planning Director. Did
you hear the question that I had asked?
Mr. Gardiner:
No. I'm sorry sir.
Mr. Morrow:
Basically, we were discussing the 20 feet from the pump islands
and from the entrance.
Mr. Gardiner:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Where the tankers come in and they place their hoses in to fill
the tanks, are those particular fill spots outside the 20 feet or are
they within the 20 feet?
Mr. Gardiner:
That I'm not sure of but we could check that out. I don't really
know where lheyre located. That's something that we've never
... we typically
do the international fire code, which we know
our fuel dispensers are 20 feet from the entrance of any doors.
Mr. Morrow:
The only reason I ask that is that depending on the volume the
station does, fiat tanker almost serves as a fueling situation.
So my thought was if there are restrictions on the pump island,
two or three time a week there may be restrictions on when the
hoses go in to f11 the various tanks. That was why I asked but
apparently we can't address that tonight.
Mr. Gardiner:
No. I do not know that location. That's something I could get
back with to the council here.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Good evening. Sir, since you're the biggest, how many racks
do you ultimately plan for Livonia?
Mr. Gardiner:
For Livonia or for this location?
Mr. Piercecchi:
For Livonia. You're only asking for one location tonight.
Mr. Gardiner:
Correct. We have other.. .
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you looking for others?
23056
Mr. Gardiner:
We have other clients out there that are requesting it,
particularly, there's two Walgreens that we have nationally. We
have Murray's Auto Paris.
Mr. Piercecchi:
How many additional ones?
Mr. Gardiner:
Right now, I'd say there's probably half a dozen. It's something
that's growing out there and the demand is there. So, its just
depending on the ....
Mr. LaPine:
Is the owner of the station or anybody from the station here that
can answer questions?
Mr. Gardiner:
Yes, there is.
Mr. LaPine:
Can we talk to him?
Mr. Alanskas:
Talk to her.
Mr. LaPine:
You heard the list of things from the Inspection Department that
need to be fixed at this station. Are you guys prepared to do
those things?
Judy Regal, District
Manager, 39173 Armstrong, Westland, Michigan 48185.
Can you please repeat them? I heard part of them; I didn't hear
all of them. So I want to make sure that if I make an agreement
to this, I know exactly what you guys are looking for.
Mr. Taormina:
The items identified by the Inspection Department in their letter
dated February 3 include the following. The fascia needs
recoating. There is an unendosed dumpster on the site. The
parking lot needs to be repaired, resealed and double striped
including proper signage for the barrier free parking space.
The east wall is missing trim and weather coating. There is an
existing ice machine outside on the north wall. The free air at
this station requires a payment of 50 cents or "go in and see the
cashier." The pump island bases need recoaling. Those are
the items identified.
Mr. Alanskas:
Ma'am, do you have a copy of that letter from the Inspection
Department because we can give you one if you need one.
Ms. Regal:
Could I please get one?
Mr. Alanskas:
You can just call Planning and they'll be glad to give you a copy
of that.
23057
Ms. Regal: Okay. Because I came prepared because the Fire Marshal
came out and said he wanted certain items corrected and we
had that done. So I wasn't aware of all the other conditions that
you guys would like to see.
Mr. LaPine: Seeing that you're the manager of the station ...
Ms. Regal: I'm the District Manager.
Mr. LaPine: District Manager. Okay. My problem is, I use your station.
Ms. Regal: Okay.
Mr. LaPine: One of the problems I have, as Mr. Morrow brought up, is about
the tanker trucks. It's my understanding, and I've been at the
station when the tanker trucks come in, they usually come in off
of Seven Mile and come in and they go from the north to the
south. Your islands are rightlhere.
Ms. Regal: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: Now sometimes I've seen them back in, sometimes they pull in.
And that's close to where the propane gas is going to be stored.
My concern is about one of those trucks backing up sometimes
and banging into these tanks. I don't know that much about
propane. I've been told they don't explode, but there's always
this possibility. Is that the only area on the property where the
tanker trucks unload gasoline? That takes care of both the
pumps on Farmington Road and the pumps on Seven Mile
Road?
Ms. Regal: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: They do. Okay. The other question I have is, I know at least
two areas close by to you that sell these tanks. I dont know if
they're Rhinos. Ace Hardware has them and Kmart has them.
Okay? The gentleman from Rhino said that they've had calls
and people want these things. Is there that much business in
that area?
Ms. Regal: Yes, there is.
Mr. LaPine: I just can't believe that.
Ms. Regal: There is.
23058
Mr. La Pine: Well, okay. That's all I have right now
Mr. Shane: I have a question for the gentleman from Blue Rhino. Do you
have any statistics with regard to the number of visits you might
expect al this station for this purpose?
Mr. Gardiner: Within a month. It's kind of hard. I'm going to say at least
weekly, once a week, if not every other week, for an 18 count
cage, for 18 cylinders to be exchanged. Typically, we make our
movement to replenish their stock and pick up the empties when
two-thirds of it is empty within that cage so they don't
necessarily run out.
Mr. Shane: Would you expect those visits to be mainly on the weekend?
Mr. Gardiner: No. Not on weekends. Typically, during the week. It varies
anywhere from 8:00 in the morning until, Speedway has
stipulations, nothing after 3:00 in the afternoon. They like to
have their managers there. So, we're typically from 8:00 in the
morning until 3:00 in the afternoon, so we're not doing late
deliveries.
Mr. Shane: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: I'd like to try one more time. Perhaps the service station owner
can tell me where the fill pipes are.
Ms. Regal: Those are where he stated but I'm not sure whether they're 20
feet or not, so that's the part I'm unsure about. I didn't know
that we had a measurement that we were looking for.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a couple questions for the gentleman from Blue Rhino.
You said that Walgreens is also looking to do this?
Mr. Gardiner: Correct.
Mr. Alanskas: All Walgreens in the city orjusl one?
Mr. Gardiner: I believe there are two in Livonia, at least that are on our docket.
I don't know if there's more than two in Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Now in other cities, like say, Farmington, do you have
olherslations?
23059
Mr. Gardiner:
Farmington, yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many stations?
Mr. Gardiner:
In Farmington Hills?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Gardiner:
I'm going to say three, four. I think there is up to five stations.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you both for being at the
podium. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak
for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-25-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 7, 2006, on
Petition 2006-01-02-01, submitted by Blue Rhino -Tapper
Propane requesting waiver use approval to place a propane
cylinder exchange rack on the exterior of the existing building at
19100 Farmington Road (Rich Gas Station), located on the east
side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita
Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 10, the Planning
Commission does hereby deny Petition 2006-01-02-01 br the
following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance 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;
2. That the proposal is not in compliance with the regulations
of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to outdoor storage and
display of products on a gas station site;
3. That the City is currently well served with similar uses to
that which is being proposed;
4. That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the need in
the area for the type of commercial service proposed to be
operated on the subjeclsile;
23060
ITEM#2 PETITION 2006-02-02-02 MICH. RECONDITIONING
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2006-02-02-02, submitted by Michigan Reconditioning
and Fleet Services requesting waiver use approval to operate
an automobile and truck repair facility at 34550 Glendale
Avenue, located on the north side of Glendale Avenue between
Stark Road and Fairlane Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
28.
5. That the petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that
this facility is suitable and appropriate for the proposed
use; and
6. That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that
the proposed use would be compatible to and in harmony
with the principal use of the subject property as well as
other uses in the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a comment as to why I
supported Mr. LaPine's resolution. Its nothing against Blue
Rhino. It's that practically every retail location in the city
potentially can have outdoor sales or ancillary sales, and our
ordinances speak to regulating outdoor sales. In the past, we
primarily have given outdoor sales to seasonal types of
products. The type of sales that can go on outside of an
establishment practically runs into infinity. We've heard tonight
that potentially we'd be face with other petitions of this sort. As
one commissioner, I try to limit wherever possible outdoor sales
or ancillary sales outside of the normal business operation.
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
I would also like to echo the same thoughts. We have, I think,
adequate places to gel propane. If this is approved, I just think
we'd be having too many areas for this type of product in our
city. Please call the roll.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if you would please specify that they have 10
days in which to file an appeal.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. The petitioner has 10 days to file an appeal
on this decision in wrifing to the City Council.
ITEM#2 PETITION 2006-02-02-02 MICH. RECONDITIONING
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2006-02-02-02, submitted by Michigan Reconditioning
and Fleet Services requesting waiver use approval to operate
an automobile and truck repair facility at 34550 Glendale
Avenue, located on the north side of Glendale Avenue between
Stark Road and Fairlane Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
28.
23061
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 7, 2006, 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 coned." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated February 8, 2006, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to operate an auto repair facility on property 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 Division of Police, dated
February 17, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed
the plans in connection with Michigan Reconditioning and Fleet
Services located at 34550 Glendale. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 15,
2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
February 6, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site is currently
operating. (2) This building needs a full inspection from
Plumbing, HVAC, Electrical and Building Inspectors to make an
evaluation of current conditions and alterations or changes
since built. Permits may need to be obtained. (3) The lot area
behind the building is an unpaved quagmire, yet is being used
for parking. This area needs to be hard surfaced and striped.
(4) The paved portion of the lot is not striped as per the original
plan. All required spaces should be sized property and double
striped. (5) The lawn east of the drive approach has been
damaged by vehicles. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from
Apartment Services Co., Inc., dated February 21, 2006, which
reads as follows: 'I am writing this letter concerning Petition
2006-02-02-02 submitted by Michigan Reconditioning and Fleet
Services. I own the building to the immediate west of MR&FS
and operate my business, Apartment Services Co, out of that
building. I fully support their request. Since moving in last
23062
summer, they have provided a valuable service to the
businesses in the area, as well as greatly improving their
building's appearance. This building had been vacant for years
and was beginning to look run down. 1 have only one request If
it is possible to have the rear parking lot paved. We intend to
pave our parking lot this year. The problem 1 have is that
whenever we have a heavy rain, mud Flows from their lot to ours
and plugs the sewer. 1 feel that paving their lot would solve this
problem. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views in
support of Michigan Reconditioning and Fleet Services'
petition." The letter is signed by George LaForest. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Stuart Durocher,
Michigan Reconditioning and Fleet Services, 34550 Glendale
Avenue, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I guess I would say that I
believe for some reason it got misunderstood that we were
doing fleet repair on our vehicles. We've been open four years,
and this has just come up recently. By all means, we would like
to comply with whatever your requests are and continue
business.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. It also upsets me that
you've been operating four years this way without a permit?
Mr. Durocher:
We moved from one building to this building nine months ago.
When I went down to the Inspection Department, I spoke with
Mr. Abrahamson when I got my original building and when I
moved, and there were no issues. All of sudden theysaid, well,
wait a minute, you're working with people off the street as well.
Yeah. I've never held that back. I mean it was misunderstood
maybe what our business was all about, but I've never told a lie
or anything. I just said, this is what we do. We work on cars
and trucks, and our name may have misled the inspector into
believing that ilwas our own fleet.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, would you furnish to Council a timeframe when the work will
be started and completed to satisfy the deficiencies as staled in
the Inspection report of February 15 of this year? Would you
furnish that?
Mr. Durocher:
I could gel it to you. It would just be a matter of obviously
whether and what not to make some of the repairs.
23063
Mr. Piercecchi:
There were quite a few things that we listed, and quite a few
things that I noticed when I was over there that I'm sure can be
repaired. But you will furnish a timeframe to the City Council?
Mr. Durocher:
Sure.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Maybe I'm missing something here. Are you saying you only
service your own vehicles?
Mr. Durocher:
No, sir. We've always worked on peoples' vehicles off the street
as well as business vehicles, including the police force.
Mr. LaPine:
Where were you located prior to moving to this location?
Mr. Durocher:
12610 Newburgh, on the northeast comer of Newburgh and
Amrhein. I was one of three businesses there.
Mr. LaPine:
One of the biggest complaints I had when I was out looking at it
is behind the building there were some trucks parked back
there. It looked like there was a boat back there. There's mud.
It looked like cars were driving through and you could see it was
frozen over. You will pave that?
Mr. Durocher:
Actually, the owner of the building is here tonight and we've
been talking about it and that's our plan. Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
That will be done within this season when the weather breaks
and you can get in there and do that?
Mr. Durocher:
Weather permitting and when we speak to the owner of the
building, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
I have the same complaint with your neighbor to the west. His
lot is in pretty bad shape back there too. So if you both do it
together, you may get a better price on the deal.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. LaPine, he says the owner of the building is here to address
the paving, if you'd like to speak to him.
Mr. LaPine:
That might be a good idea. It's better to talk to the owner
because probably in the long run you're going to pay for it in
your lease.
Mr. Durocher:
I hope not.
23064
Mr. LaPine: Can the owner come up and answerlhese questions please.
Sal Giordano, Rea Construction, 12701 Universal Drive, Taylor, Michigan
48180. Good evening. To answer your question, sir, we did
talk about it and we do plan on paving the back area. Between
the frost and depending on the weather, is when the asphalt
plants open up. Usually it's toward the end of April. When we
can gel in there and do some grading, and the neighbor is here
also, we're going to try to gel a price in doing them together.
We do plan on paving the back area.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, when he does that, will he be required to put something in
to lake the water away? How do we handle that?
Mr. Taormina:
He will have to provide some means of drainage. He will have
to work that out with the Engineering Department when he
submits his grading plan to see how to accommodate storm
water management on the site.
Mr. Giordano:
There is a storm sewer towards the rear already.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there?
Mr. Giodano:
Yes, so I think if we pitch the asphalt to the storm sewer, it
should okay.
Mr. LaPine:
Now, I understand you dont want to put up the fence. What's
the reason you don't want it because you say you don't have
any cars back there or trucks back there at anytime.
Mr. Durocher:
There are vehicles there from time to time. As a matter of fad, I
know that somebody was by today to take a look. A fence, in all
regards, is not so much that it wouldn't suit a purpose for the
vehicles being stored there, its just that the way the property is
separated, it would be a hindrance to my neighbor. We share a
fair amount of our property between the middle and we drive
trucks on low trucks through there and he drives his trucks with
trailers through there. If we actually squared off that area with a
fence, it would be prohibitive to get through there.
Mr. LaPine:
You have a joint agreement. You use the same driveway for
both properties on the east and on the west side. You're on the
east; he's on the west.
Mr. Durocher:
Yes. He's here today too.
23065
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thant you.
Mr. Alanskas:
I would like to ask the petitioner, what kind of work do you do?
Do you do engine work and transmission work there also?
Mr. Durocher:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
You do. Okay. Because of the fad that you're on M-1 property,
the noise is no issue. How many vehicles of your own — its
says here that you park your own vehicles in the front in the
evening?
Mr. Durocher:
In the evening?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Durocher:
There are no vehicles left outside.
Mr. Alanskas:
There's none at a11? Not even yours?
Mr. Durocher:
Unless I'm there.
Mr. Alanskas:
But I mean when you leave, there's none at all there?
Mr. Durocher:
No. All the way down the side of the building and the front of
the building is totally empty.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Are there any more questions?
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions but I think all we're
doing is playing catchup here. Through a misunderstanding,
the proper
inspections and permits were not issued, and that if
the petitioner
has agreed to rectify those, as you indicated, Mr.
Chairman, the business is in an appropriate area and they have
a successful business. If you can correct those things, I don't
see any reasons why he can't continue.
Mr. Durocher:
Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have one question. In our letter, you have plumbing
issues and electrical issues inside the building?
Mr. Giodano:
There are no issues. The city is just requesting that we gel an
inspection to make sure thalthey're okay.
23066
Mr. Alanskas:
And that will be done also?
Mr. Giodano:
That will be done also. OSHA has already been through the
building and they're really strict on everything, and everything
has been passed.
Mr. Alanskas:
For a good reason.
Mr. Giodano:
Yes. You're absolutely right.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you for both coming forward.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this pefition?
Michael LaForesl, 9816 Cranston, Livonia. I'm speaking on behalf of my father,
who owns the properly to the west, and I'm also one of the
partners at Apartment Services. With regards to the parking
situation, from a logistics standpoint, it made more sense for us
to put the parking to the side, for our trucks as well as his, like
he said to gel in and out and around much easier. With regard
to the fence, once again like Stuart said, putting a fence up
would actually be a hindrance trying to gel trucks around into his
building as well as over to our building because ilwould put cars
on both sides in harms way. One final thing I would like to say
is that I watched a lot of these hearings over the years. My
father owns some property on Plymouth Road. I understand
some of your concerns with automotive repair. I've been in my
position since 1991 with a fleet of 43 vehicles. I've seen no
cleaner operation that the one that Stuart runs next door in
terms of the general appearance, vehicles being kept where
they're kept, the outward shape of the building. It's a first rate
operation and its something yoUll only be well served to keep.
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-26-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 7, 2006, on
Petition 2006-02-02-02, submitted by Michigan Reconditioning
and Fleet Services requesting waiver use approval to operate
an automobile and truck repair facility at 34550 Glendale
Avenue, located on the north side of Glendale Avenue between
23067
Stark Road and Fairlane Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
28, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2006-02-02-02 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That parking areas shall be provided which shall be
sufficient in size for the parking of automobiles and other
motor vehicles used by patrons and employees in
accordance with the parking requirement for this use as set
forth in Section 18.38 (29) of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That an improved parking area in the rear yard, required to
the extent necessary to fully comply with the parking
requirement for this use, shall be surfaced with concrete or
plant -mixed asphalt or a paving improvement of equivalent
design as approved by the Engineering Division;
3. That all required parking spaces shall be sized properly
and double striped;
4. That the existing landscaped areas shall receive needed
maintenance and any portions of the rear yard not used for
driveways or parking areas shall be established as
landscaped areas, with proper irrigation, and all
landscaping work shall be accomplished to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and all planted materials
shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy
condition;
5. That there shall be no outdoor storage of dismantled,
damaged, inoperable or unlicensed vehicles;
6. That all auto parts, equipment, scrap material, debris or
similar items generated by the subject use shall be stored
inside the building or inside a dumpster or other type of
trash container;
7. That the elimination of the requirement that the lot area be
enclosed by a fence shall be contingent upon the waiving
of this requirement by the City Council by means of a
separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of
the City Council concur; and
8. That this building shall be required to undergo a full
inspection from Plumbing, HVAC, Electrical and Building
Inspectors of the Inspection Department to make an
23068
evaluation of current conditions and alterations or changes
since built, for which the petitioner shall apply for any and
all permits that may need to be obtained.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject property 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.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. La Pine:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may ask the operator of the business just
one more question. When I went out there Iasi week for my
inspection of the facility, I noticed that next to the dumpster
there was a lot of debris from cars and parts and things of that
nature. Do you just throw them in the back or do you have a
dumpster you put those in? How is that handled?
Mr. Durocher:
Actually, we're working on that right now. You know the price of
scrap is up. We have a plan to get rid of all that scrap and we're
going to try to gel a scrap dumpster. Our business does
generate some used parts. Things break and that's what we
replace. We're going to gel some sort of an approved metal
scrapdumpster.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. That was one of the things I noticed. We dont like to gel
that because it has a tendency to just pile up. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
On that same thought, you could possibly store all that in the
inside of the building?
Mr. Durocher:
You mean the dumpster or just the waste?
Mr. Alanskas:
The waste — in a small area inside the building until d can be
picked up.
23069
Mr. Durocher: We could but in retrospect, ifs really going to be prohibitive for
the amount of space. We do have a lot of space but we have a
lot of vehicles coming in and out, and there's really not area
where we could do that, an area we could sacrifice to do that.
We could gel a bin and have it properly housed outside.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM i13 PETITION 2006-02-02-03 SUNDANCE (TACO BELL)
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Pefition 2006-02-02-03, submitted by Sundance, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant (Taco
Bell) with drive -up window facilities at 19055 Farmington Road,
located on the west side of Farmington Road between Seven
Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated February 10, 2006, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to )our request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
the following comments. The legal description for the combined
parcels is not connect. We have revised it below. The drive
approaches to Farmington Road will require a permit from
Wayne County and detention will be required in accordance with
their Storm Water Management Ordinance. We recommend
that the southerty radius on the Right Tum Only Drive to
Fillmore be adjusted to keep the south curb line parallel to the
North line thus channelizing the traffic more to the North and
discouraging left turas." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 8, 2006, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a full service
drive-thru restaurant on property located on the east side of
Filmore Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Clanta Avenue
in the Northeast X of Section 9. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Marked alley shall
23070
be posted FIRE LANE - NO PARKING. (2) Fire lanes shall be
marked with freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE
— NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at
a size and spacing approved by the authority having
jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
February 17, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed
the plans in connection with a proposal by Sundance, Inc., in
regards to the Taco Bell located at 19055 Farmington Road. We
have the following recommendations: (1) The proposed sign 'right
tum only' at the exit onto Filmore is not h conformity with the
new 2006 MMUTCD. At this location there should be a No Left
Tum sign (R3-2) on both sides of the driveway with a 'Do Not
Enter' (R5-1) sign on the reverse side. There also needs to be
a 'One Way' (R6-1) sign visible to traffic on Filmore. (2) Utilizing
the existing parking in front of the liquor store to achieve the
number of required spots is questionable, and it will create a
vehide/pedestrian confiict at the entrance. (3) We performed a
gap study during peak traffic hours on Farmington Road to
determine the possible need forsome type oftmffic control device
for exiting traffic. At this time, traffic gaps are within guidelines and
no such device is needed." The letter is signed by David W.
Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated February 17, 2006, second
revision, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
February 6, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) It is unclear if the drive
approach off Filmore is for egress only. Will exit only signage be
posted? (2) This site would be allowed one wall sign
approximately 33 square feet. All other wall signage, including
window signage indicated on the left and right elevations, is
excessive in number and square footage, and any square
footage over 33 square feet on the front wall is also excessive.
Signage as proposed would require variances from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for excessive number and square footage. (3)
Moreover, all logos or signage on all directional signage must
be removed or also receive a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. (4) The barrier free parking signage/spaces must
have a minimum of one, which denotes 'Van Accessible.' (5)
There is a general landscape note, which specifres seeding on
lawn areas instead of sodding. This should be clarified to the
Commission and/or Council's satisfaction. (6) The agreement in
regard to seven parking spaces at the 'liquor store' should be
provided for review and approval of the Commission and/or
Council. This site is going from 20 on-site parking spaces to 19
on-site parking spaces. (7) It appears that the drive serving the
23071
angle parking south of the drive thm lane is deficient in width.
The drive thru lane must be 12 feet wide and the one -my lane
serving the parking must be 16 feet wide. If this cannot be
corrected, a variance must be obtained from the Zoning Board
of Appeals for this deficient width. (8) As this building is being
demolished, this proposal will also need a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient front yard setback. Sixty
feet is required and 46 feet is proposed. (9) There is also a
parking deficiency due to the drive thm. Two additional spaces,
beyond the minimum specified, are to be provided and are not.
Therefore a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for
deficient number of parking spaces will be required or a super
majority (5 votes) of Council must approve this deficiency. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. I
would like to acknowledge that there was a letter submitted by
Eric Rauch, Desine, Inc., dated March 1, 2006, in connection
with the revised site plan which references the items in the
departmental letters. The petitioner has corrected some of the
items that had been deficient. That letter is in your packet. I
would like to acknowledge receipt of a second letter from Eric D.
Rauch, Desine, Inc., dated March 6, 2006, pertaining to decibel
levels for the speaker post, to which is attached a letter from the
manufacturer of the speaker post with respect to decibel levels
at certain distances from the post. This item is also in your
packet. There is also a letter from the property owners on
Westmore, which is close to this pefition area, dated March 4,
2006, which reads as follows: "This letter will serve as our
petition to the City of Livonia Planning Commission on behalf of
those not in favor of the expansion of the Taco Bell Restaurant
located at 19055 Farmington Road. We feel very strongly that
an expansion to include a drive-thm window will not only deplete
property values but will also negatively affect the quality of life of
those residents Irving near the restaurant. A drive-thru will
require additional lighting and undoubtedly increase the number
of vehicles in the area during what is expected to be extended
hours of operation. The sheer volume of additional vehicles and
people in the area will create congestion, noise and infringe on
the quiet and inactivity that residents currently enjoy in the off -
hours of operation. We have resided at this address for almost
14 years. We have frequented the Taco Bell in question many
times over that period of time. At no time did we ever not visit
because there was not a drive-thm window. In conclusion, it is
quite apparent to us that the qualities that we cumently enjoy as
residents of Livonia would be extremely compromised with an
addition of a drive-thru. The influx of traffic, congestion,
23072
extended hours of operation, increased lighting and increased
levels of noise would not be acceptable to the residents of the
area." The letter was signed by Quentin and Pamela Laszyca,
19007 Westmore. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, is this new Tam Bell building smaller or larger than the
new one we approved on Merriman Road just north of Plymouth
Road?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure of the actual comparison. We don't have that
information but the proposed Taco Bell on Farmington Road is a
slightly smaller restaurant. As I recall, the Taco Bell on
Merriman Road had 50 to 60 interior seats.
Mr. LaPine:
Are the building materials and design of the building the same
as the one on Merriman Road?
Mr. Taormina:
I'll lel Mr. Nowak respond to that. I think we made some
changes as it pertains to that building. If you will recall, we
increased the percentage of masonry on that design, but go
ahead, Mr. Nowak.
Mr. Nowak:
Yes, the Merriman Road building has brick up to the height of
about six feel above grade, with the balance of it being stucco.
This building on Farmington Road will have the cultured stone
up to a height of three feet above grade all around the building.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Eric D. Rauch,
Desire Inc., 2183 Pless Drive, Brighton, Michigan 48114. Good
evening. I'm here tonight on behalf of Sundance, Inc., who are
franchisees for the Taco Bell Corporation throughout the
southeast Michigan area. Also with me tonight is Rick Eccles,
Properly Manager for Sundance, Inc. Mark, if you don't mind,
could you put up the proposed zoning presentation. The very
first one you used in your presentation. The subject parcel is
located at 19055 Farmington Road. It is currently .48 acres in
size. It was constructed in 1982 and no longer meets the
current specifications published by the Taco Bell corporate
office. The Taco Bell Corporation has issued an ultimatum to all
of their franchisee holders nationwide, and that is that they must
update all of what they refer to as their mission style
23073
restaurants. Those are the restaurants constructed in the '80's
that have the three arch windows in front and the clay roofs. All
franchisees must update their existing mission style restaurants
to the current building prototypes and site specifications prior to
a renewal of that franchise right for each particular site. With
that said, this particular site comes up for renewal this fall. If
improvement to meet corporation specifications is not made, it
will have to be closed. The subject parcel is zoned G2, which
does peril a full service restaurant with the waiver use
requirement. The existing restaurant has dine -in and carry out
service and would be required to add a drive-lhru to meet
corporate standards. However, as you look at the existing
property, it's got this odd, what I refer to as an Oklahoma shape
to it, and its not conducive to site features for our proposed use
so we can get traffic circulation in a counterclockwise direction
throughout the site to meet both corporate and city standards.
With that said, to make improvements that can meet corporate
and city standards, a confingency agreement for the purchase
of the property at 19036 Filmore has been made. Could you go
to the proposed site plan presentation? The proposed
development would demolish that existing house and use less
than half of that properly for site features related to the Taco
Bell. The proposed site would have parking for 27 vehicles.
We're actually able to gain one more spot by moving this
dumpsler location east. We recently moved that dumpsler
location per comments through public hearings and throughout
the municipal process because, and rightfully so, there was
concern about the dumpster location in that very southwest
corner. So we moved it east to get it a little further away from
the residents. Additionally, there's quite a bit of landscaping
proposed for his site as you know and well over double of that
required. There's quite a bit of landscaping proposed in the
middle island here along the front. You can see landscaping
beds and ornamental trees, and right here there is a knee wall
proposed as you can see at the bottom. This knee wall would
be about two or three feet high. As we traveled through the
community, we found this to be a feature that we see on a lot of
your sites in the City of Livonia, so we decided to incorporate
that imaging that the City has or has adopted within our site. So
we proposed this two to three foot tall knee wall. It would be red
brick to match similar brick styles throughout the city. It would
incorporate our signage, have a limestone cap on lop, and of
course decorative two foot by two foot ends on it. So we really
tried to incorporate site features that we see throughout your
community, particularly on the front. Likewise, the screening
wall along the western and southern portions of the property
23074
here would be about five foot tall, and there is some
communications. We can certainly make that taller or shorter as
requested. Again, red brick with a limestone cap and decorative
ends on it. Currently, traffic along Filmore Avenue has four
traffic functions. It has left and right tum ingress and left and
right turn egress. We'd limit those four functions cumenfly to
one function, to egress right turn only. So currently, patrons into
the Taco Bell from time to time cul through the residential
portion of Filmore Avenue to come into the Tam Bell. They
would no longer be able to do that. Likewise, from time to time,
patrons into the Taco Bell lake a left tum onto Filmore to travel
down through the residential portion. Again, they'd no longer be
able to do that. All traffic onto Filmore Avenue within our site
would have to egress right towards Seven Mile Road. That is
certainly an improvement in traffic for the residents along that
stretch of Filmore Avenue. Likewise, along Farmington Road,
that would be limited to nghl Tums only, and that came about
through public hearings and public comments throughout the
city. That's something that was suggested to us and are
certainly glad to abide and make this aright turn only onto
Farmington Road. Mark, do you have an artist rendering in
there, if you don't mind. To limit the effects on the adjacent
properties, as I previously mentioned, the site will have this five
foot tall screening wall, all red brick, limestone cap. It looks real
nice and has that timeless character to it. A wall within itself
though can be somewhat obtrusive because it can be a large
mass. So we've proposed arborvitae, spaced five feet on
center, all the way along Filmore Avenue and then back about
halfway into Filmore Avenue. The existing conifer trees, which
have been there probably 35 — 40 years, very mature, would be
preserved, and we'd place four or five larger canopy trees in
there, such as Oaks or Maples, to help fill in this open space.
There's a 50 fool wide open space proposed between this
screening wall here and the next adjacent resident to the south.
Additionally, something that you can see on the pictures up front
here, there's some inadequate screening there currently that
comes right up to the edge of the sidewalk, which is our
property limit. We have moved our site improvements 10 feel
east, so now there's an additional 10 feet of buffer strip that
currently the residents don't have along Filmore Avenue. That
additional 10 feet, along with our significant improvements to the
screening wall, and also the significant amount of landscaping,
which includes those arborvitae, also includes some flowering
ornamental trees and ground cover, should really make a real
nice appearance along there, not only to buffer light and sound
pollution but really looks aesthetically pleasing too. All these
23075
spaces, this 10 foot buffer and the 50 foot wide open space
would be irrigated, mowed and maintained on the same weekly
basis that the Taco Bell would be by a professional landscape
company. So everyone can rest assured that it will be taken
care of, weeded and look nice at all times. The closest any
resident will be to the Taco Bell screening wall is approximately
75 feet. It's a little hard to see, but its 75 feet from the edge of
the residents to the south to the screening wall. Currently, it's
23 feel from the current screening wall for the Taco Bell to the
existing residents to the south. It's 23 feel. That's an increase
of 52 feel in distance between the existing residents and our
buffer wall. Likewise, the existing Taco Bell building is 85 feel to
the corner of the existing residents to the southwest. That
would increase to 123 feel, or an increase of 38 feet from the
proposed building to the end of the next adjacent parcel to the
south, the closest residence to us. So there's an increase of 38
feet between the buildings and the next adjacent residential use,
and an increase of 52 feet between the screening wall itself and
the next adjacent residential use. So we've increased not only
the buffering, not only the landscaping, but we made significant
improvements to the distances between the existing residential
uses and the proposed commercial use. Could you go to the
sound level presentation? Over the last few months as we've
gone through this municipal process, there has been a lot of
concern about sound and rightfully so. You have in your packet
a letter from the manufacturer of the speaker post, which
explains decibel levels and helped explain it to me really. The
speaker post proposed would have what they call an order
confirmation board. In other words, as you make an order, its
listed on a screen and it helps eliminate some of the
communications between the person ordering and the person in
the building. Additionally, the volume of the speaker post can
be controlled. It can be one level during the day. It can be
separate levels in the evening and nighttime hours, and
certainly we would do that considering the proximity to the
residents. When you look at decibel levels for the speaker post,
the manufacturer limits the highest maximum decibel level that
can be to 70 decibels. Now, decibels decrease by six every
time the distance away from that source is doubled. So 123 feet
away to the existing residence to the south, that 70 decibels will
be reduced down to 40 decibels, and that is the worse case
scenario. Now at the evening and nighttime hours, we can
reduce that level of 70 decibels at the speaker post, down to say
60 decibels. So that in turn reduces this down to 30 decibels.
It's a little hard to read, but if you look at the chart to the side, 40
decibels is comparative to a quiet library. That's what they
23076
compare it to. Thirty decibels is considerably better than that.
All these decibel levels are how they diminish through thin air.
They do not even take into account the proposed objects
between us and the existing residence to the south. So at the
speaker post here, there would be a car in front of it. There
would be another car parked on this angled parking spot. We
have a five foot tall screening wall, proposed landscaping, and
there's an existing barricade wall right here. There are five
objects in there, and speaking with the speaker post
manufacturer, they insisted that certainly you can expect 10 or
15 decibels to be diminished off of that. So we're looking at
decibel levels of 20 or less, and the human ear starts to hear
decibel levels at 20. Twenty decibels is explained to be the
noise level within a TV studio, which of course without those
speaking to the audiences is nothing. We've really tried to
account for this and control the volumes on the speaker posts
and present something that provides a lot of buffering for light
and sound and provides larger distances between what the
current existing site has versus our proposal. In 2000, Hunts
Ace Hardware received approval from the City of Livonia for the
request to rezone residential properties so that they could
expand their parking lot. That's actually just three streets down,
three blocks down. When you look at it, it's offset from Seven
Mile. It's actually in the same location as we're proposing our
improvements. We're proposing 6,000 square feel of
improvements. That's it. Six thousand square feel. And like
Hunts Ace Hardware, our improvements include parking and
drive aisles. Additionally improvements, that Hunts doesn't
even have that we do, of course include this screening wall here
and the 50 fool wide open space and the additional 10 foot wide
buffer strip along Filmore Avenue. Sundance, Inc. are very
experienced developers who understand the importance of
being a responsible neighbor. In fact, ever since the owner has
owned this particular property, they received on average 1.87
disturbing the peace calls per year, and that's per the aty's
police records here at Livonia. So that's less than two
disturbing the peace calls per year on this particular site. My
company, we've worked with Sundance, Inc. for seven years
now. Over the last three years, we've done 22 projects in 22
different communities. The corporation is forcing the franchisee
to make improvements to the Taco Bell or it will be closed.
What would be left is a piece of property with an odd geometry
to it, with a building on it that's obviously an old Taco Bell. The
windows would be boarded up. The site lighting would no
longer be turned on at night, and certainly we wouldn't spend
much time taking care of it. So, really the City needs to make a
23077
decision on whether or not they want a business that's been
operating on this site 25 years to make an improvement of well
over $1 million or do they want to see this building boarded up,
shut down and lights out. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: Could you bll me how much the drive lhru facility will increase
the business on your site in terms of the number of cars?
Richard Eccles, 7915 Kensington Court, Brighton, MI 48116
Mr. Alanskas: And you are the franchisee?
Mr. Eccles: The properly manager for the franchisee. Probably increase in
traffic 1510 20 cars an hour at its peak.
Mr. Shane: And the percentage your business will increase?
Mr. Eccles: Il would probably increase by a third.
Mr. Morrow: Along those same lines, can you tell me your current hours of
operation and the projected hours of operation should this
petition be approved?
Mr. Eccles: I believe we're open until 1:00 a.m.; the dining room is open.
Mr. Morrow: Currently?
Mr. Eccles: Currently. Most of our dining rooms with drive-thms get closed
at 10:00 with the drive thru open to, during the week, 1:00. On
weekends, Friday, Saturday, some stores Thursday, Friday,
Saturday, until 2:00 a.m. We have a store in Jackson that's
opened until 4:00, but that's very rare.
Mr. Morrow: That was coming kind of fast. So you're saying the dining room
now stays open until 1:00 a.m.?
Mr. Eccles: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Under the new one, how long would the dining room be
opened?
Mr. Eccles: The dining room would be open until 10:00.
Mr. Morrow: Until 10:00 p.m. And the drive lhru would be opened until ....
23078
Mr. Eccles:
During the week, 1:00 a.m. On weekends, we'd be open until
2:00 a.m.
Mr. Morrow:
And that's in the morning.
Mr. Eccles:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
And based on that, you figure about a 33 percent increase in
business overall?
Mr. Eccles:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm assuming that the parking you negotiated with the Wine
Castle would be for employee parking?
Mr. Eccles:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
I have a number of questions. Run me through this. Now,
someone coming from the west on Seven Mile Road,
subdivisions to the west of that, comes down Seven Mile Road
and they want to go to the drive lhm. Can they come in off of
Filmore and gel to the drive lhm?
Mr. Eccles:
No, they cannot.
Mr. LaPine:
So they have to come up Seven Mile Road to Farmington, turn
right, and then they come to the driveway that's now a double
driveway basically for the Wine Castle and for the Taco Bell. Is
that correct?
Mr. Eccles:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Now, we've got cars lined up on Farmington Road trying
to make left hand turns off of Farmington Road going west on
Seven Mile Road. I live in this area so I know it very well. I've
been stuck there. I get in a line and I think I'm going to be there,
and there's three or four cars waiting to get in. Its a mess.
Now, let's assume that a guy goes in here. He came from the
west, and he came around and he got in here. He went into the
line to gel his carryout. When he leaves, he wants to go back
down Seven Mile Road. He can't make a left hand tum. Is
there any crossover in the front of this building so he can go
back out there, come back to Filmore, gel out to the Seven Mile
Road and make a left hand turn to go west?
23079
Mr. Rauch:
That's a good point. In fad, our previous site plan did have a
cross access between here. It was eliminated due to some
people had some concerns about what that would do to this
particular area though, as far as congestion. So due to public
comment and comments from Council, we removed that cross
aisle.
Mr. LaPine:
To me, it's so inconvenient for somebody coming from the west
who wants to go in here for the drive thru, he has to come out.
He has to turn to the south, probably go up a couple doors and
make a U-turn in one of the other businesses there, and go back
out to Seven Mile Road. Or, and I was just out there the other
day and watched them do it. The one way street, one way
coming out, the one way going into the Wine Castle, people
were coming out there and making a left hand tum. It says one
way in, but they take the one way out. There's no way you can
control that.
Mr. Rauch:
Where al? I'm confused.
Mr. LaPine:
Up here. Okay. Its a one way going in.
Mr. Rauch:
Correct. After the building here, it's one way.
Mr. LaPine:
They came out from the back of the building. They came right
out here to Farmington Road and made a left hand tum.
Mr. Rauch:
Patrons of the Wine Castle?
Mr. LaPine:
I don't know who they were. They could have been from your
place for all I know.
Mr. Rauch:
But they can still egress right here.
Mr. LaPine:
They can?
Mr. Rauch:
They can.
Mr. LaPine:
The sign says exit only, it's pointing out. I mean entrance only.
Mr. Rauch:
Here?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Rauch:
That wouldn't be there then. The function of this drive would not
change.
23080
Mr. LaPine:
I'm going to be honest with you. When this Taco Bell was
proposed years ago, I voted against it. I didn't want it there
because of the fad that the Wine Castle was there first and it
created a problem with traffic. In my opinion, it still creates a
problem with traffic. If the Taco Bell was on the corner, and the
Wine Castle was where you are, it would be a better to have the
restaurant on the corner than on an inner lot. The other
problem that I have, I'm not in favor of commercial
developments going into residential areas. Why the guy is
selling this house, I have no idea unless the price is so high that
he couldn't tum it down. That's a beautiful home. Have you
seen the home? It's a beautiful home. Why would anybody
want to sell the home unless he was getting an extraordinary
price for it is beyond me. At this point, because of the traffic
problem that I foresee that this is going to create, I just can't in
good conscience support this proposal. I'm sorry. Based on the
fad that I opposed it originally, I opposed the Taco Bell when it
went in their originally, and nothing has really changed my mind.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, what's to slop the cars coming off Seven Mile Road and
going down Filmore from entering this site?
Mr. Rauch:
We're going to have signage on both sides of there.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Signs, you know ... are these enforceable signs? I doubt it.
Mr. Rauch:
That's true for any street. Who enforces it is the city. That's
true for any street sign. We have done everything we can do
from a traffic safely standpoint. We've got signage on both
sides. We've got no left turns. We've got geometry that forces
them to the right. That's going to be true for any site. You can
make that argument for any entrance.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You're not letting me talk here. I have some questions here.
Are you saying its impossible to go north on Filmore and enter
that area?
Mr. Rauch:
To come from the north? No, I'm not telling you it's impossible.
Absolutely not.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Why is it impossible?
Mr. Rauch:
I'm telling you it's not impossible.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Pardon me?
23081
Mr. Rauch:
It certainly is not impossible.
Mr. Alanskas:
He's saying it's not impossible.
Mr. Rauch:
Its not. I absolutely agree with you. Its not impossible.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm very concerned about traffic.
Mr. Rauch:
From a traffic standpoint ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
You made a good point when you talked about your speaker
noises, but what about the car hom noises and things of that
nature?
Mr. Rauch:
These are existing site conditions that have been there for 25
years. Patrons come in, park on the site, and I do understand
that from time to time there's a boom box that might be loud or
something of that nature. But we've been operating there for 25
years. When you look at the assessing data, a lot of the
residents moved in after that. These are existing features.
We're certainly trying to lake those that we've improved .. .
these improvements that we're trying b make and cut down
from not only those potential nuisances by adding the drive thm,
but taking what we have for existing nuisances and trying to limit
them as much as possible.
Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned that this operation has been in effect for 25
years. I think it's a crime that Taco Bell would do this to a
customer who's been with them for 25 years. I can't believe
there's no grandfathering or that in any of these contracts. I
think its really a crime that Tam Bell would do this to a guy, and
put the burden on the city to put in a site which isn't really
designed to handle a drive lhm. If it was, you wouldn't have had
to buy a 100 fool lot on the south so you can take care of
parking and things of that nature and go through a lot of the
gyrations. That site is loo intense. I'm very concerned about
property values, safely, all those things, for the people on that
street, and the whole neighborhood. I think it's really a crime.
When you go back to corporate headquarters, I think you ought
to tell them that they should do some grandfathering.
Mr. Rauch: If you don't mind, I do want to touch a little bit on the traffic.
We've supplied to you a traffic impact study that does slate that
traffic along Filmore Avenue in that residential district is going to
23082
diminish quite substantially because we've limited three out of
the four traffic movements.
Mr. Piercecchi:
How is ilgoing to diminish?
Mr. Rauch:
What's going to diminish?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Isn't a great deal of the traffic on Filmore?
Mr. Rauch:
The traffic created by Taco Bell is going to be diminished. So
we've improved the condition of the traffic created by Taco Bell
onto Filmore Avenue as supplied to you in a traffic engineering
study by a professional.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Its still the same old story of putting five pounds of coffee in a
two pound can. That philosophy was mentioned in one of our
study meetings, but I'm very concerned about the property
values, traffic hazards, all those things. It's a very lough
decision to make here because of 25 years of occupancy of the
site, but the site just does not work.
Mr. Rauch:
With removing that one home, we've increased the distance
between the properly lines and the next home.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We could even double that distance by buying the next lot.
Mr. Rauch:
What is the value ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
I don't want to debate with you.
Mr. Rauch:
What is the value of that home right now being so close?
Wouldn't the value of that home be devalued a certain
percentage because it is so close to the Taco Bell? Where now,
if you have a home that is 82 feel further away, aren't you
improving the neighborhood? You've taken away the home
that's been devalued because it is so close or the house across
the street that is dose to an alley. Do you think it's worth as
much as one in the middle of the block? No, its not.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I don't wish to debate with you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you, sir, for your thoughts.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But let me say this. If you want to double the distance, buy the
next lot.
23083
Mr. Morrow: A lot of the things I wanted to say was covered by Mr.
Pieroecchi but 1, loo, feel troubled that a very successful
corporation like Taco Bell would mandate either do it our way or
we're going to remove your franchise. I can't believe this is the
only franchise across the country that's faced with this dilemma.
So the dilemma we face as the city is, here's a viable operation
that's coming in. They're expanding their business by 33
percent but they have to do it with a waiver petition. The reason
it's a waiver is because of an intensified use. As one
commissioner, I would love to see that business stay there in its
present form rather than open it up to this additional traffic,
hours of operation on weekends and encroach upon the
neighborhood. You've done a fantastic job on the site plan as it
is. You addressed a lot of issues. The only issue that remains
is the intensified use and how it affects the city as well as the
neighbors from a traffic standpoint and from a quality of life
standpoint. Those are my comments.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to make a few comments. Number one, you've
done a good job of trying to make that traffic go away from
Filmore. However, when you say you're going to increase your
business by at least 33 percent, that means you're putting 33
percent more traffic on Seven Mile and Farmington Roads, and
that's a mess already. Like Mr. Morrow said, you've done a
grealjob in trying to do what you can to make this building work,
but unfortunately, in most of our minds, it's not going to happen.
Thank you.
Mr. La Pine: I'd just like to say you've done a really nice job making the
presentation, really a nice job. A lot of the points you made are
valid points. But the point still remains, in my opinion, the
biggest obstacle is the traffic problem at that intersection. It has
been a problem for years. There's more building going on along
Seven Mile Road to the west of it, and the situation gels worse
every year. I've lived there for 26 years and I Iknow what I'm
talking about. The other point I want to make is, I don't think its
fair to the people living in that area who bought homes, even if
they bought their homes after Taco Bell was in there. They
realized Taco Bell was there, but for one homeowner to come
along now wanting to sell their lot to take a commercial
establishment and move it further into the residential area is
wrong. If you lived there for years and you didn't want to move,
you would probably be upset if you lived there because
somebody wanted to sell a residential lot for a commercial
development. Its wrong, and I don't think the residents who live
in that area should have to suffer.
23084
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petiti on?
Roger M. Cole,
19018 Filmore. The neighborhood and I would like to keep our
neighborhood a good place to live. A drive-thru on this site is
not good for the neighborhood. The seven fool wall around this
location will not stop the noise from traveling into the
neighborhood. Between the party store building and a seven
foot wall, the noise from drive lhru speakers and audio boom
boxes will echo into the neighborhood until the early morning
hours. A 50 foot buffer zone, with landscaping, will not help the
noise problems. A 50 foot buffer zone will be a place for people
to hang out. At the present time, Filmore Street and its
residents enjoy peaceful and crime -free surroundings. I will lose
privacy and my right to peace and quiet as a homeowner if this
properly is rezoned. The owners of Taco Bell say if they cannot
build a drive-thru at this location, the building will be abandoned.
They claim that this is a hot location. Well, I think that other
businesses would like to build on this location loo. I think that
taking down a home to build a drive thru is not good for the
neighborhood or the city. Michigan Heritage Bank was denied a
drive lhru on their location. We would like the same
consideration on our location too. I am against the rezoning of
19036 Filmore. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
How close are you to the Taco Bell?
Mr. Cole:
I am the second house on Filmore.
Mr. Morrow:
From the east or west side?
Mr. Cole:
That would be the east side. Well, I'm right next door to 19036.
Mr. Morrow:
The one they're removing?
Mr. Cole:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Now, tell me what you meant by boom boxes.
Mr. Cole:
Well, I've lived there for 14 years and there's been people in the
parking lots with their music. It's real loud at times at night or
early in the morning, because I work early in the morning. I
work at Ford Motor Company. I would just like to have a
peaceful neighborhood.
23085
Mr. Morrow:
That is something I hadn't thought about, the fact that if you're
experiencing it now, and I assume that's probably a bigger
concern than even the drive -up window or the speaker that's
there. I know just driving down the road I hear a lot of loud
music and my windows are closed.
Mr. Cote:
Right.
Mr. Morrow:
Anyways, I just wanted to know how close you were and if that
was a consideration.
Mr. Cole:
My property line would be about 50 feel away from their
proposed wall.
Mr. Morrow:
And you have experienced boom boxes in the evening?
Mr. Cole:
Yep.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Therese Frey,
32511 Wisconsin. We went around and look some digital pictures
of old buildings, old Taco Bell buildings. They're saying that no
one would buy that property, and I have five different locations
of different Taco Bells. One is a Quiznos. One is LaShish.
Someone would buy that property if they put it up for sale. I just
wanted to say that and submit this so that you could lake a look.
Mr. Alanskas:
We'll take that for our records. Thank you very much.
Karen Greenwald, 19007 Filmore. I live directly across the street from Mr. Cote.
What I have done, I have resources for each of the members
concerning the decibels of sound that will be occurring from
boom cars, boom boxes, exhaust and from people loitering
outside of Taco Bell. So I'd like to pass those out. And very
briefly, I'll
just go through what I have in these packets. First of
all, according
to Patrice Thomas who wrote an article on the
boom box car noise, she said, number one, noise is defined as
unwanted sound although there are many kinds of sound.
There are many types, and they are especially dangerous to the
health and safety of the public. Noise is the number one reason
that people move out of an area. And the Citizens for the
Coalition Against Noise Pollution state that all over America,
families can't sleep at night, and if they're going to be open until
2:00 a.m. and we have boom boxes coming through, we're not
going to be able to sleep. It's not just the sound. It actually is
the physical pressure of that sound that is going to permeate. I
23086
don't Gare what kind of buffer they put down. There are four
different types of frequencies. There's an ultrasound, which is
the lowest level that a dog can hear. There's the normal level of
hearing range that we hear during normal conversation. There's
low fequency, which is a 50 hertz or lower or infrasonic sound,
and that's at the real low, low, low level, but it still impacts us.
Okay? I don't care how big of a buffer zone they put, we're still
going to have people coming through at 2:00 a.m. and they're
going to be using their vehicles to blare their music. Also,
there's the infresound, and that is at a 20 hertz and that actually
becomes very dangerous to people because it affects us
physically. What it does is, it actually builds pressure in our
bodies and we are not able ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Ma'am, I'm going to give you three minutes.
Ms. Greenwald:
I'm sorry. So, I'd like to ask you to just look these over and what
I'd like to just say, people also will be coming through with their
modified exhaust systems and that is a harsh noise. Again, that
will permeate any bene or barrier that they provide. Basically,
the main thing here is that we will be affected not
just physically,
but emotionally, psychologically, emotionally. And
frankly, if this
goes through, I'll move.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. It would have helped if we would have had this
presented to us not at the last minute.
Ms. Greenwald:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Alanskas:
Its all right. But thank you for bringing it in.
Ms. Greenwald:
Sure.
Mr. Alanskas:
Who's next?
Gloria Kildani, 19301
Filmore. I just wanted to make a comment myself. As one
of the committee members had said, that it is an older
neighborhood and with the new design of the Taco Bell, to me,
i's going to look like a sore thumb. It just doesn't look like it will
fl in.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Edward J. Zelmanski,
Esq, Alexander, Zelmanski & Lee, PLLC, Plymouth,
Michigan. Good evening, gentlemen. I'm an attorney. I
represent Roger Cole, a resident who has also spoken to you
23087
this evening. He lives on the east side of Filmore in the second
house south of the Taco Bell site. I have to say I feel like I'm
preaching to the choir tonight, because I think that this
commission, in the first instance, with regard to the rezoning
proposal, voted unanimously to turn it down. Based on the
concerns that I've heard you voice, I thought I was projecting my
thoughts up to the commission here because you asked the
questions that I thought of asking and you made the points that I
thought needed to be made. There are two things that I need to
point out and that is that they've done a fine job of presenting
this, of trying to make a 10 pound taco fl into a one pound taco
shell. It just ain't working. But in doing that, there are some
things that bother me. One thing is, when the plan was first
presented this evening, it was mentioned that the setback off of
Farmington Road preserves the existing setback of 45 feet.
However, the building is going to be torn down and a new
building constructed, and so in all honesty, the fact of the matter
is, that is a nonstandard setback. The setback requirement is
60 feel. So it's presented like we're going to keep it the same.
Well, it's going to be kept the same because it will be torn down.
If the building wasn't being torn down, I suppose they could
sustain the non -conforming setback. But to portray it that way, I
dont think was being totally honest with the Commission. There
is another factor that really bothers me, and I don't think you
were presented with the facts on this. I think you look a look at
il, but if you could show the site plan, Mr. Nowak. One thing
that was presented with the site plan at the Iasi council meeting,
if you look at the northerly entrance off Farmington Road, what
is obviously not there now are the directional arrows. That was
set up initially, their plan called for that alley to be one way.
Everybody around here, all the neighbors around, have
registered their opposition. Wine Castle has remained
somewhat neutral. When the Wine Castle found out that the
alley was going to be one way, Wine Castle protested
vociferously. Nick Ioannow, with whom I have spoken as a
proprietor there, and he said, no way. I won't go along with this
unless I have two-way traffic in the alley and ingress and egress
in that northerly entrance on Farmington Road. So the arrows
presented to the Council showed both ways there. You come in
and out from that northerly entrance. The southerly apron is for
egress only unless theyve changed that. But I dont know that
you've been really given an accurate account of the kind of
gerrymandering they're doing to try and please everybody. And
it cant be done. I think everybody knows there are huge traffic
problems there. But Wine Castle says his clientele has to be
able to use that alley two ways on the eastern end and his traffic
has to be able to exit left onto Farmington Road. That's keyhole
suicide. There's only one entrance into the Taco Bell. That one
way for ingress is that northerly part. A lot of ways for you to
leave, but only one way to gel in. If you look at the traffic
problems, what about emergency vehicle access? You've got
one way in. If you look at all the concerns that the different
departments voiced, there has to be a fire lane with no parking
in that alley. Delivery trucks are parked there frequently. Il just
is incompatible with what's going on.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, you have one more minute.
Mr. Zelmanski:
Right tum only out of the alley, vehicle/pedestrian conflict, the
alley needs to be 16 feel wide. Its only 12 feet wide. Again, it's
a 10 pound taco in a one pound shell. Iljusl don't work.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. Are you with the petitioner?
Amy Casebere,
19036 Filmore Avenue, Livonia, Michigan 48152. No. I'm a
homeowner. I felt like I should speak since my right as a
property owner and my judgment was in question. My husband
and I, who's home with our child right now, chose to sell our
properly not for pure financial gain. Obviously, there is a
financial gain whenever you sell a property or else you wouldn't
sell a property. But we also felt that it was an improvement to
the area. We do hear the noise next door, and when we do
hear the noise, we promptly call the proper authorities and its
taken care of. I feel that if a drive thru is there, being a high
school teacher, teenagers are not going to hang out where
there's people driving through constantly. Its just when they
can't away with stuff if there's people constantly going through.
So this is my personal opinion. I feel that loitering would
definitely be decreased with the drive lhm. I know you guys feel
how you feel so I just wanted to stale that our personal reasons
for selling the property were. We fell it would be an
improvement to the area with a new structure instead of the
outdated one, with landscaping all the way around, which there
is barely any now, with the movement of the dumpslers, there
was great improvement to the area. The traffic on Filmore
would definitely be decreased. So as a resident of the area,
that is why we chose to sell the property.
Mr. La Pine:
Can I ask the young lady a question?
Ms. Casebere:
Sure.
23089
Mr. LaPine:
Did you try to sell the house as a residence?
Ms. Casebere:
No, we have never put our house on the market since we've
owned it.
Mr. LaPine:
Maybe you could sell it. Maybe somebody would care and
would like to live there. You've got a beautiful home.
Ms. Casebere:
Yes. And that's why we live there now, but I'm saying if
someone, if an outside person came to purchase our home ...
someone came to us. So it's not like we sought out Taco Bell
and said, oh, we want to sell, we want to sell. I mean that
wasn't the situation, but when we saw the plans, we thought it
was an improvement to the area. If it were some shady place
going in there or something, my husband was born and raised in
Livonia and graduated from Stevenson High School. You know,
we are raising our family in Livonia, so I would not do something
that I fell would be detrimental to the community, and I just fell
like I should defend my actions.
Mr. LaPine:
Let me ask you a question.
Ms. Casebere:
Sure.
Mr. LaPine:
You say you're a high school leacher?
Ms. Casebere:
Yes. Crestwood High School in Dearborn Heights.
Mr. LaPine:
A lot of kids drive cars today, right?
Ms. Casebere:
Yep.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you ever see any of these kids when they have the radios on
in their cars blasting? I can be at a red light and have my
windows up, and I can hear teenagers blaring their radios.
Now, what's going to stop those people from going here to this
drive thru?
Ms. Casebere:
It's moving, is the point. It wouldn't be moving with a drive-thru?
I'm saying right now, they hang out there because the back area
is an area where they can hang out because there's no one
there.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm not saying that. I'm saying they're going to be playing their
radios while they're waiting in line to get the food.
23090
Ms. Casebere:
Thatwon't be for 15, 20 continuous minutes.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you know that for a fad?
Ms. Casebere:
Well, a drive thm, yeah. They cant sit there in the drive thru.
Mr. LaPine:
Why can't they? They have to wait. They order food.
Ms. Casebere:
They have to wait. Once they gel their food, they have to exit
because ofthe cars behind them.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that, but how long are they going to be in the line?
Ms. Casebere:
As quickly I'm sure as Taco Bell can get them through.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I just have one more question for the young lady.
Ms. Casebere:
Sure.
Mr. Morrow:
When you said you called the property authorities, who was
that?
Ms. Casbere:
We called the Livonia Police Department. And I'm sure that
1.87 is us. I have a newborn child. If it were a continuous
problem, she's six months old, I wouldn't live there, but literally,
we haven't called since she's been born.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I'm back to one of my favorite words, and that's dilemma.
If we increase this business with a drive lhru by 33 percent ...
Ms. Casebere:
Oh, l understand.
Mr. Morrow:
We dont want to burden the city with a lot of calls to the police
department.
Ms. Casebere:
That was my point. With the essence of a drive-thm, patrons
coming in and out, there's less congregation, is what my point
was.
Mr. Morrow:
But we still have the dining room there.
Ms. Casebere:
A congregation outside.
23091
Mr. Morrow:
I just wanted to make that point. I was hoping you were going to
say you called the management at Taco Bell, not the police.
Ms. Casebere:
No, because the management of Taco Bell isn't responsible for
students.
Mr. Morrow:
If it was the police, we're thin enough in the traffic patrol as it is
and we don't want to increase the burden.
Ms. Casebere:
The ordinance that is posted outside of Taco Bell is a Livonia
city ordinance, not a Taco Bell ordinance, with the no loitering
sign so that's why I called the City of Livonia, not Taco Bell.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, you did the right thing.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you for coming in.
Mr. Rauch:
I did want to touch on a few things that was brought up through
public comments here. First off, there was mention of the Taco
Bell building design and whether or not it's conducive with the
residential neighborhood. It may or may not be, but we are
certainly willing to look at alternatives for the building design,
add more brick, take away some of the color schemes, more
windows, things of that nature, to make it have more of those
residential characteristics and less of those corporate type
characteristics. It was mentioned the setback and the variance
and a couple things were mentioned about the Fire
Department's review and all these reviews. These are all things
that we've actually take care of, and the packets in front of you
respond to each one of those comments and/or we made
revisions to those comments. So I do want to make you aware
of that. The really only outstanding item is the variance on the
setback, and, of course, we wouldn't ask for a variance until we
could gel site plan approval. It would be silly to put the cart
before the horse. Currently, that Taco Bell, I believe, is 43 feet
from the front property line. We're proposing at 46. So we are
actually moving back just a few feet, and I understand its not
back to the setback of 60 feel, but we didn't want to bring that
building closer to the residents.
Mr. Alanskas:
You couldn't. We wouldn't lel you.
Mr. Rauch:
What's that?
Mr. Alanskas:
You couldn't. We wouldn't lel you.
23092
Mr. Rauch:
That may be true, too, but that's something we saw right away
in a conceptual design. Where we have an existing variance,
we like to keep that variance the same or just a little bit better
and try to keep this building farther away from residents as
possible, and these are all the things we considered through
conceptual and site designs. We have thought of and
considered the concerns of the residents before we even spoke
to them because we understand, as responsible developers, the
importance of it, the importance to the city and the importance
to us and to an establishment within that city, and the concerns
of the one-way alley on the site plan. Could you bring up the
site plan again, Mark?
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, you have one more minute.
Mr. Rauch:
Okay. I want to take a look at this and on a previous site plan
you did see traffic arrows. Traffic arrows for one-way traffic
movements start right here. There's a one-way movement to
the west on both ends. Now, our site can function without the
10 fool alley width for Wine Castle. We have 15 feet between
the edge here to that property line, which is the dimensional
standard for 45 degree parking for a drive aisle width. So our
site can function without that alley. Patrons coming from the
Wine Castle can still egress onto Farmington, but patrons
coming in for Taco Bell, once they enter past this building here,
enter into that one-way traffic movement. So there would be
from time to time on a very limited basis a person patronizing
Wine Castle and trying to egress onto Farmington and the
function of that drive would not change. It's currently an
ingress/egress. We do not want to change that function, but we
are making this one-way in through the alley, and the gentleman
at Wine Castle is certainly aware of that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, let me ask you just one question. If this proposal did not go
through, through us or the City Council, would Taco Bell try to
get within a mile or two of that same area?
Mr. Rauch:
They have to. We've been trying for four years now.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. A motion would now be in order.
Mr. La Pine:
May I ask Mark a question? The alley, is that an alley that's
been vacated?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
23093
Mr. LaPine: And they each own 10 feet of the alley, is that what it is?
Mr. Taormina: I think originally that was probably the arrangement. It was
probably a 20 foot alley originally and the abutting owners each
took fifle to their respective halves.
Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: A motion is now in order.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-27-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 7, 2006, on
Petition 2006-02-02-03, submitted by Sundance, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant (Taco
Bell) with drive -up window facilities at 19055 Farmington Road,
located on the west side of Farmington Road between Seven
Mile Road and Clanta Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9,
the Planning Commission does hereby deny Pefifion 2006-02-
02-03 for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance 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 proposed use and its location, intensity, site layout
and periods of operation are such that the use is
incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding
uses in the area, particularly with respect to the residential
neighborhood to the south and west;
3. That the proposed site layout and its relation to streets
giving access to it, particularly with respect to vehicular
turning movements in relation to routes of traffic flow and
location and access of off-street parking, will be hazardous
and inconvenient to the neighborhood and will unduly
conflict with the normal traffic flow and circulation patterns
in the neighboring area;
4. That the proposed use is contrary to the purposes, goals
and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which seek to
insure compatibility and appropriateness of uses so as to
enhance properly values and to create and promote a
23094
more favorable environment for neighborhood use and
enjoyment;
5. That the pefifioner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate
that the site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
6. That the proposal fails to conclusively deal with all the
concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of
the City and its residents.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks that I've prepared, if I may?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman and fellow commissioners, since this proposal
was studied in great depth at previous study sessions and
tonight, I will not unnecessarily prolong debate and will restrict
my comments to the essential. Namely, as Mr. Morrow
mentioned earlier, this proposal must meet the elements to
satisfy the general waiver requirements and general standards
contained in Section 19.06 of our ordinance. A quick review of
just four sections of Zoning Ordinance 19.06: (1) The proposed
use must be of such location, size and character that it will be in
harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. (2) That the
proposed use shall be such that traffic to and from the use will
not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood. (3) That
the proposed use shall not have a detrimental effect on the
neighboring property nor impair the value of neighboring
properly. (4) The location, size, intensity, site layout and
periods of operation must be designed to eliminate any possible
nuisances. Referring to the opening paragraph of the general
waiver requirement, and I quote, "A waiver or use shall be
approved only if the proposal complies with all of the special
requirements" Recently, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to deny the rezoning pefition associated with this
proposal. Hopefully, City Council will do likewise. I still have a
firm conviction, Mr. Chairman, that this use does not meet all
the criteria required in 19.06 to gain waiver approval and, as
such, this plan is not in the best interests of its neighbors.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. Anybody else?
23095
Mr. Shane: Yes, just a quick comment here. I am opposed to this plan for
many of the reasons that have already been menfioned, which I
won't go through, traffic, etc. But the other thing that bothers
me is for a corporation like Tam Bell to, more or less, hold a
hammer over our heads and say that if you don't approve this,
we're going to close the store. If this store was on its last legs
and not making any money, I could understand that, but I have
a hard time understanding or believing that's the case. It seems
to me if you have a good location, you ought to try and run it as
best you can, even if you can't expand. For all those reasons, I
am opposed to this plan.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. The petitioner has 10 days to appeal this
decision in wrifing to the City Council.
ITEM#4 PETlTION2006-01-06-01 FEES
Mr. Piercecchi,
Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Pefition 2006-01-06-01, submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
determine whether or not to amend Section 18.58 of Article
XVIII and Section 19.03 of Article XIX of Ordinance #543, as
amended, in order to establish new fees and increase existing
fees charged for the review of Site Plans and Waiver Use
petitions.
Mr. Alanskas:
This is a petition brought forward by the City Planning
Commission. Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Thank you. This proposed language amendment to Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance would increase the fees charged
for the review of site plans from $500.00 to $600.00. It would
eliminate the $1,500 cap on the fee charged for the review of
site plans, and establish a new fee of $300.00 for requests that
involve modifications of a previously approved site plan or
condition of approval. In addition, Section 19.03 of the Zoning
Ordinance would be amended to charge a fee of $600.00 for
requests to modify an approved site plan or amend a condition
of approval in connection with a previously approved waiver use
petition. Presently, there is no fee charged for an amended site
plan. The $300.00 difference between the fee being assessed
to alter a site plan versus a fee being assessed to amend a
waiver use petition is due to the fact that amendments to a
23096
waiver petition typically require a re -hearing and there are
certain expenses for holding those public hearings. So the
Planning Department is recommending that the Planning
Commission adopt the proposed language amendments as
submitted to you this evening.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a
motion would be order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-28-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 7, 2006, on
Petition 2006-01-06-01, submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
determine whether or not to amend Section 18.58 of Article
XVIII and Section 19.03 of Article XIX of Ordinance #543, as
amended, in order to establish new fees and increase existing
fees charged for the review of Site Plans and Waiver Use
petitions, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2006-01-06-01 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed fee adjustments will help offset the
City's costs associated with the review of site plans,
requests that involve modifications of a previously
approved site plan or condition of approval, and requests
to modify an approved site plan or amend a condition of
approval in connection with a previously approved waiver
use petition; and
2. That the proposed language amendment will establish fees
that are commensurate with the complexity and amount of
effort and activity involved in processing and reviewing the
various land development project proposals.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. 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?
23097
ITEM#5 PETITION 2006-01-08-02 CADEMEADOWS
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2006-01-08-02, submitted by Cade Investment, on
behalf of Cade Meadows Site Condominiums, requesting
approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by
Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a condominium development on properly
located at 36905 Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest % of Section
32.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-29-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2006-01-08-02, submitted by Cade
Investment, on behalf of Cade Meadows Site Condominiums,
requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan
required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection
with a proposal to construct a condominium development on
property located at 36905 Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest''/. of
Section 32, be removed from the table.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Taormina:
We have no new information.
Mr. Alanskas:
There is no further correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
No, there is not.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Lou Ronayne,
Cade Investment, LLC, 310 W. Dunlap, Northville, Michigan
48167.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anything you'd like to say?
Mr. Ronayne:
Nothing new from before except that I did make the changes
necessary before that the Council had commented on, and
that's what you guys still ha ve in front of you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
23098
Mr. LaPine:
Have you seen this plan that our staff made going from 11 lots
to 10 lots?
Mr. Ronayne:
No. From what? From 11 to 10?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Ronayne:
No. I'm aware of what 10 lots look like, Mr. LaPine. I played
with all those numbers, and again, I would just like to reiterate
that we've gone to great depths to try to accommodate all the
neighbors, and I don't see anybody at any of the meetings that
we've had opposing this. The only person that's been here has
been the neighbor that wants this to go through, and we've
accommodated that. There's one spot, there's one Iittie thing
deficient with this, and that's because there's an overly
extended nghlofway because it's Ann Arbor Trail. That's the
only thing, and when I look this to the City Council, they did not
want to two lots, which would meet the ordinance, facing Ann
Arbor Trail. So I went through great expense and time to
accommodate this. I understand what you're saying, with 10
lots lheyd be bigger, but if you're looking at a market, which I've
done for 25 years in Livonia, and try to keep houses at a certain
price and build for young families to come into Livonia, it doesn't
make sense to do it any other way. I've got a good reputation in
Livonia for building nice projects. I've never ever had a problem
in Livonia with anything I've ever done.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't think anybody is questioning that. My own personal
opinion is, I think it makes a nicer looking sub with 10 houses all
facing the road coming in off of Ann Arbor Trail. I'm not
questioning your reputation. You're probably a great builder
doing a great job but, in my opinion, losing one lot can't be that
big of a problem.
Mr. Ronayne:
Mr. LaPine, out of due respect, though, sir, all the added
expenses ... you guys just voted on it again for site plans. The
costs incurred to developers nowadays are making it cost
prohibitive, and you need that extra lot just to make things so
you can build affordable homes in there. I understand what
you're saying, but you're talking about $100,000. You're looking
at it saying, well, lets just get nd of one of these, and I'm looking
at it from the side of the person that takes the risks and puts the
investment in, that has to pay all the fees, all the permit fees,
and brings lax dollars to the city. And that's a lot of money.
$100,000 is a lot of money on a small project and it meets the
requirements except for the setback.
23099
Mr. La Pine: There's two things that I'll give you. Number one, its not your
fault that there's not much property left in Livonia, and the prices
developers are paying for parcels of land is outrageous in my
opinion. Consequently, when they pay a big portion for the land
and they have to put in the infrastructure and everything that's
needed that the city requests, they want to jam as many lots as
they humanly possibly can onto that properly. I dont think that's
good for the person who buys the houses.
Mr. Ronayne: But they have that opportunity to buy it and nowadays
communities are making the developers put in the ingress and
the egress and the acceleration and deceleration lanes. A lot of
the burden that has been put on developers, sir, has been
because of the city, and then you want us to cul our lot costs.
Mr. La Pine:
Sir, don't sit there and tell me that all the things you put in the
development, that you don't pass that on to the buyer of the
house. Do you or do you not?
Mr. Ronayne:
So now what we'll do is, we'll cut it one lot and now we'll take 10
lots and we'll add another $10,000 to the lot, so it gets passed
on the buyer. I'm telling you ....
Mr. LaPine:
That's what I said.
Mr. Ronayne:
It becomes excessive and I don't think the marketwill uphold it.
Mr. Morrow:
It is my understanding that you look a conforming site plan to
the City Council and you got your, what is it, 12 lots?
Mr. Ronayne:
That would give them an idea ... yes, sir, to give them an idea
of what the layout could be on there, and that site plan had 11
lots.
Mr. Morrow:
Which was conforming. It mel all the ordinances.
Mr. Ronayne:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
And you received input from them.
Mr. Ronayne:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
Saying that they didn't want the lots fronting on Ann Arbor Trail.
Was there any talk about reducing the number of lots?
23100
Mr. Ronayne: Not that I recall. There might have been, but I don't recall. Its
been awhile. That was last year.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. So my opinion is a little bit different from Mr. LaPine's. If
the Council finds fault with your projection where you have
conforming lots, and you can still get the same number with a
variance off of Ann Arbor Trail, I would think that would be the
least we could do to preserve the number of lots in there
because I also understand that through the water detention
area, you had to buy some additional properties to make that
work.
Mr. Ronayne:
Yes, sir. Plus we gave additional property to the guy next door
so he wasn't so close. The only point I want to make, because I
sat here all night tonight, and I understand the concern and
what you guys represent, but all the projects I've ever done in
Livonia, I've come in and I've never had a problem with
neighbors or the development when it was finished because I've
taken the time to do this. It is a money issue. There's no doubt
about it just because of the cost of things nowadays. But I've
taken those into consideration so you don't have a whole area
of people complaining about it.
Mr. Morrow:
Yeah, I don't want to get into the costs or anything like that. I
guess mine was a very simplistic approach that you wanted a
certain number of lots and you're conforming to what you
thought the Council would like to see when it came back to
them.
Mr. Ronayne:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
What is the variance we're talking about for the record?
Mr. Ronayne:
Mark, what did it end up being? I believe its like 12 feet. We
did go back. I got with my engineer and tried to make that
smaller. In fad, Mr. Nagy helped me with that, and he was able
to reduce it halt of what it is, but I mean you'd have to fill the
houses to get in there. It just didn't look right.
Mr. Taormina:
The lots are required to be 90 feel and they're showing 65 feel
at the building line, so roughly 25 feel.
Mr. Ronayne:
We were able to gel it down to 15.
Mr. Morrow:
And that is based on the improved road or the existing road?
What's the setback from the existing road?
23101
Mr. Taormina:
It's measured from the future right-0iway. If you want to take it
from the existing road, that would be an additional 33 feel. You
would add 33 feel to the 65 feet, but that's not how we
determined the lot width.
Mr. Morrow:
No, I understand that, but I'm just talking about existing
conditions and if Ann Arbor Trail never gels wider.
Mr. Ronayne:
When we first started, Mr. Morrow, both of them were deficient,
but we were able to reconfigure the road and push it back
further, because if you look at the development behind it, they're
all crammed in there like a shoehorn. It's a small dead end road
that doesn't have enough room for a fire truck to tum around.
So I think it's an improvement from the only other development
next door to us.
Mr. Morrow:
I just wanted to give those comments.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Good evening. Sir, you must admit that the staff layout of your
particular proposal is really very nice and compact, but it is
restricted to 10 lots rather than the 11. Now, you mentioned
that you want to build affordable houses here. Right? What
type of price range are you going to have here?
Mr. Ronayne:
I believe we have to keep them under $300,000.
Mr. Piercecchi:
How much?
Mr. Ronayne:
Under $300,000.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I didn't gel that.
Mr. Ronayne:
Under $300,000.
Mr. Piercecchi:
And that's what you call affordable?
Mr. Ronayne:
Any more, new construction, it is. What would your definition
be, sir?
Mr. Piercecchi:
What I consider affordable? My first house cost $11,000. You
mentioned that losing a lot here would result in a $100,000
penalty. Are you stating, sir, that the lot cost you $100,000?
Mr. Ronayne:
To develop that lot, to be able to market that lot and develop it
and the land costs, it's a $100,00 lot with a small profit on it.
23102
Mr. Piercecchi:
That purchase plus improvements and the whole nine yards?
Mr. Ronayne:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It would be $100,000. Okay. I don't know what profits you
make on houses, but you are really improving the lots. You're
adding eight feet basically to four lots. You would think that
would market the homes at a price which could gel back some
of that proposed $100,000. I think this is a very good layout and
I commend Mr. Taormina and his staff for making this drawing.
It looks very good to me.
Mr. Ronayne:
Well, sir, again, all I'll say is that it abuts another project that's
relatively new in Livonia that this Council and this Planning
Commission had it come before them that is lighter, smaller and
is not even as nice as the project I'm putting in, and I dont think
that's a fair comparison.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But this setback requirement that you can't meet at the current
time, you know, I think 30 feel is loo short for that street. I think
at lead we should add on the normal setback between houses
onto that. Make it like 40 anyway, a minimum. I'm not
sympathetic about you trying to rearrange these perpendicular
because if you arranged all ones perpendicular to that street,
you'd only have to be 25 feet away.
Mr. Ronayne:
Well, if I had to change it to 10 lots, I wouldn't be buying the
property next door, and the neighbor wouldn't be happy about it.
I know that might not matter to you, but then on the other lot, I
could put the water retention on that. What I tried to do and it
has taken me a year, sir, is to try and accommodate a neighbor.
More than once, you had it here earlier. I sal here and watched
the Taco Bell. You cared about the neighbors. I'm the
developer that went to the neighbors and said, look, why don't
we make a project that's win-win. What do you want out of this?
And you haverll had one objection. The only objection is from
comments from the Commission. You've got not one neighbor
here complaining about this. Not in the back and not the guy
that's directly impacted by this. The only reason I'm trying to do
an additional lot is because we're purchasing his land to
accommodate the discharge and to give him more land so he
has more space between there. I mean I'm not coming here
trying to get rich. The one lot is not going to make me rich but
there was a reason we did this, a nd I don't want you to think that
I'm trying to just put too many lots into something. Those
23103
setbacks meet it. The only thing it doesn't meet is that
excessive setback because its on the main road. If we were on
Lyndon right now, we wouldn't even be discussing this because
it would meet it. It's one deficiency that I would like to take ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
You dont have to scold us here.
Mr. Ronayne:
I'm not trying to scold you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We're just trying to enforce the ordinances. There's nothing
personal here. You're 25 feel short, and it's been brought to
your attention. The staff said, well, maybe we can avoid that by
manipulafing these houses around.
Mr. Ronayne:
Sir, all I wanted to do is give you the background on how I came
to he conclusion. I don't want to argue about it either. I just
wanted you to understand what I was trying to do.
Mr. Alanskas:
Gentlemen, ve're not going to have a debate back and forth
here. Give your comments and then we'll go on.
Mr. Piercecchi:
No more.
Mr. Shane:
I'm sort of in Lee's comer on this. There is a way you can meet
the ordinance but the Council doesn't like it. You can have two
lots, one can take access from your interior road; the other
would be almost 140 feet in depth which is about 20 more than
the ordinance requires off of Ann Arbor Trail. That's the only
one and you'd be able to have a turnaround. I would approve
that. Because you could meet the ordinance that way and
because of the circumstances of this particular projed, I'm going
to vole for it the way you have it because I know you could meet
the ordinance if the city would lel you. So I take the posifion
that it's a good little project and if we have to bend a little bit on
that particular lot, I dont have a problem with it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Anybody else? A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#0330-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petifion 2006-01-08-02,
submitted by Cade Investment, on behalf of Cade Meadows
Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed,
bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
23104
condominium development on properly located at 36905 Ann
Arbor Trail in the Northwest % of Section 32, be approved
subject to the waiving of the open space requirement of the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the following conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, except for the fact the following shall be
incorporated:
That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be
brick or stone, on all four (4) sides, and the total amount
of brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less
than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story
dwellings;
That all exterior chimneys shall be back;
2. That the brick used in the construction of each
condominium unit shall be full face four inch (4") bnck;
3. That streetlights and sidewalks shall be installed
throughout the development to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department;
4. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in
the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set
forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as
amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail
and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements;
5. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed and bylaws or a separate recordable instrument
wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the
City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred
for the storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities,
and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on
each lot owner's property prorela and place said charges
on their real estate lax bills in the event said charges are
not paid by the condominium association (or each lot
owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of
Livonia;
23105
6. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of 2 dated December
12, 2005, prepared by South Hill Construction Company, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7. That a fully detailed Landscape Plan for the detention area,
cul-de-sac island and the street frontage along Ann Arbor
Trail shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and
City Council for their review and approval;
8. That only a conforming entrance marker is approved with
this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council;
9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
10. That the Developer shall submit for approval an ongoing
mosquito control program, as approved by the Department
of Public Works, describing maintenance operations and
larvicide applications to the City of Livonia Inspection
Department prior to the construction of the stormwater
retention facility;
11. That the Condominium Association shall provide annual
reports to the Inspection Department on the maintenance
and larvicide treatments completed on the stonnwater
detention pond;
12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
January 11, 2006:
13. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
lot width for Lot 11 and any conditions related thereto;
14. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for; and
15. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
23106
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development.
Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to say that I think the petitioner has really done
his best to do what the city wants except for the two homes
facing Ann Arbor Trail. And hopefully when it goes before the
Council, if it does go with an approving resolution, this can be
resolved. Would the secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, Shane, Alanskas
NAYS:
LaPine, Piercecchi
ABSENT:
Smiley, Walsh
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 919' Public Hearings
and Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Approval of the Minutes of the 919" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on January 31, 2006.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0331-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 919" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January
31, 2006, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Shane, Morrow, Piercecchi, Alanskas
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Smiley, Walsh
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Alanskas, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resoluton adopted.
23107
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 921s' Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 7, 2006, was adjourned at 9:55
p.m.
ATTEST:
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Daniel Piercecchi, Acting Secretary
Robert Alanskas, Acting Chairman