HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-01-30MINUTES OF THE 938° REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 30, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 938" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in 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 oflhe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2007-01-08-01 OVERSEAS MOTORS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-01-
08-01 submitted by Overseas Motors Inc. requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
existing auto sales and service dealership located at 32400
Plymouth Road in the southwest''/. of Section 27.
January 30, 2007
23836
Mr. Miller: The pefitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to
the existing auto dealership located on the northwest corner of
Plymouth Road and Hubbard Avenue. The name of this
establishment is Overseas Motors. The existing building is
composed of two main components. Along the street frontage
of Plymouth Road is the largest section of the building (10,816
sq. ft.), which is utilized for sales and service. Behind this and
sticking out from the back of the building is a small (3,560 sq. ft.)
warehouse. The proposed addition would be 3,600 square feel
in size and constructed to the rear (north elevation) of the
existing warehouse element. This new addition would be
utilized as warehouse space and, along with the existing
warehouse portion, would double the size of the stockroom.
The front yard setback for a building in a C-2, General Business,
zoning district is sixty (60') feel from the nghtof--way line. The
existing building only sits back forty-four (44') feet from
Plymouth Road. In order to add on to a nonconforming building,
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required.
Twenty-nine parking spaces are required, and they are
providing 82 spaces. A majority of the parking (71 spaces) is
located behind the building. This rear parking lot is currently
utilized as a vehicle storage yard for a neighboring business, Bill
Brown Ford. For security reasons, this rear parking lot is fenced
in. As it stands now, the eleven (11) parking spaces in front of
the building are the only available parking for customers of
Overseas Motors. The new warehouse addition would match
that of the existing building in both building materials and height.
The existing building is constructed out of a combination brick
and painted concrete block. The new addition would be
constructed out of painted concrete block and would coincide
with the existing warehouse, including corresponding doors and
trim.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 12, 2007, which reads
as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description
submitted indicates that then= is 55 feet of right-of-way in front of
this property. This would place the sidewalk on private
property." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated January 12, 2007, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct an addition to the existing auto sales and
January 30, 2007
23837
service building on property located at the above referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Andrew C. NMlker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated January 23, 2007, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 9, 2007,
the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following
is noted. (1) This site does not appear to be in compliance with
previous Zoning Grant (8002-5) and Council Resolution (#367-
80) in regard to removal of painted wall signs on the east and
west walls. (2) This site also does not appear to be in
compliance with Zoning Grant (9107-79) and has outside
storage, which was prohibited. (3) This site will require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for an addition to a
noncronforming building with deficient front and side yard (east)
setbacks. (4) The landscaping appears deficient, which may be
waived. The required underground irrigation system for all
areas, including the right-of-way, should be tested. (5) This site
has two pre-existing nonconforming pole signs. (6) The rear lot
is fenced and locked from the front area. The petitioner should
describe to the Commission's and/or Council's satisfaction how
the rear parking areas will be utilized. (7) The front parking
areas needs repaving, repair and double striping. (8) The front
light poles are costed and the one nearest the front entry is
damaged and leaning out of plumb and needs repair or
replacement. (9) The rear fence has slats in it, which is
currently not allowed. (10) A front overhead door needs paint
and/or maintenance. This Department has no further objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Samuel Demrovsky, Operations Manager, Overseas Auto Parts, 32400 Plymouth
Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm part owner of Overseas
Motors.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far?
Mr. Demrovsky: Yes. I'd like to smooth out some of these findings. As soon as
the weather gets a little bit wanner, we do intend to paint the
signs on the east and west walls so it will not be sticking out.
And of course the poles, they do have a little bit of paint that's
chipping off. We do want to paint that. We tried to pave the lot
on the front, but twice in a row, in two years, we were stopped,
mainly by the engineering on Plymouth Road that's handling the
Plymouth Road Authority. They said they're going to plant
some kind of flowers for that corner and not to do anything;
otherwise, they're going to min the asphalt. So we wailed and
January 30, 2007
23838
wailed. Now I hear that their funds are lacking a little bit. I don't
know whether they'll have that this summer to construct some
kind of wall on the northwest corner of Hubbard and Plymouth,
something similar to Farmington and Plymouth Road or smaller,
some kind of a flower bed or whatever. And they were going to
take about eight feet out of the frontage of that right behind the
sidewalk. So we're wailing. Anytime that gels done, it will be
paved. There was also mention of some doors. We're putting
in two brand new front doors. The old ones are loo old. Theyre
wooden doors and we're putting aluminum. I'm just going by
what findings were on this, the overhead doors, that's one of the
last items. And we do have two new ones, like I mentioned.
Fence - what is that slats? Is that the plastic?
Mr. Miller: Yes
Mr. Demrovsky:
Oh. Okay. Its been there for about 20 years, but if that's a
problem, that can be sheared off easily. I wasn't sure what the
slats were. The parking lot has been given back to us by Ford,
Bill Brown Fords. They no longer need that parking lot
apparently. They told me they're not going to stock so many
cars this year. So they handed that back over to us. We did
have an agreement of monthly rental, no long-term lease, just
month -lo -month, and that's the reason also for our move to
construct this. We didn't want to encroach on his parking,
although supposedly it was helping the taxes, but I don't think
so. Not for $1,100 for one acre. That's what we were getting,
so I'm glad that's coming back to us. I don't know what else to
add, but I would like this honorable board to help us out and get
some of this. We are putting in some dunnage on the back. I'd
like to put it in the building.
Mr. Walsh:
We might have a few questions for you here. Are there any
questions?
Mr. LaPine:
How long have you been at that location?
Mr. Demrovsky:
We opened up January 1, 1963.
Mr. LaPine:
During that time, did you ever have any plans to upgrade the
front ofthal building? It's outdated. I'm just wondering.
Mr. Demrovsky:
Well, this summer we did put new roofing on it, the frontage that
is, a different color. We did paint that and correct it. It had
some bad looking shingles; now it has some nice red ones. It
could be in the works, but I can't tell you at the moment.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you still sell automobiles al that location?
January 30, 2007
23839
Mr. Demrovsky:
Yes, we do.
Mr. LaPine:
Is it the biggest part of your business?
Mr. Demrovsky:
No. Parts is.
Mr. LaPine:
Parts. The next question I have is, seeing that you're increasing
this, you're going to have 7,000 some odd square feel of
storage space. Is that all going to be parts?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Some of it also lakes up into dunnage. There are these plastic
sheets that we have to use, and right now they are outside and
they're wet. It's all parts. The very last addition will be parts.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Morrow and I were out inspecting it. There's so much stuff
in the back of that building up against the building. It looks like
there's big machinery out there. What is that?
Mr. Demrovsky:
There is a large machine that belongs to TRW, which has been
moved to our location momentarily. It's going out of there.
Mr. LaPine:
That's going to be removed?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Yes, it will be. And some of the other scrap machinery. They
asked us to fix some machines for them, and I think the age of
those machines are too old. So they're going into scrap.
They're going back to TRW. I don't know what they're going to
do with them.
Mr. LaPine:
The other problem I have, it looked like there's some pallets
back there. I couldn't gel into the back so I don't know exactly
all what's back there, but it sure was a very messy situation.
Mr. Demrovsky:
Pallets have been cleaned up. There's hardly a pallet Teff on
that lot. That was I would say within the last week. We had
piles of pallets, which were removed.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Because we were out there on Saturday and they were
still there.
Mr. Demrovsky:
There's still dunnage that I'd like to move into a building.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, that's the next question. Once you build this building, can
we be assured that all that sluff back there will be gone?
Mr. Demrovsky:
All that sluff will be inside.
January 30, 2007
23840
Mr. La Pine:
Thank goodness we can't see it from Plymouth Road, but it is
very, very disturbing to me when I went back there to look at it.
That's all I have for right now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
It seems to me I recall it looked like a real old truck you had
parked back there also.
Mr. Demrovsky:
Yes, and we'd like to gel rid of that one too. It's already fallen
through the asphalt.
Mr. Morrow:
I was going to say, that didn't look like it was in running
condition.
Mr. Demrovsky:
No, it needs to be scrapped out. Its been there for 20 years,
the same location.
Mr. Morrow:
So that will be part of the cleanup of your yard, right?
Mr. Demrovsky:
We need to throw that one away.
Mr. Morrow:
We look forward to a clean yard.
Mr. Demrovsky:
It had some things in there - pallets is what it had, and I don't
want either the truck or the pallets anymore.
Mr. Morrow:
Now, I wasn't clear when you were talking about those two walls
signs that are painted on. Did you say you were going to paint
over them?
Mr. Demrovsky:
We're going to paint, just paint over it.
Mr. Morrow:
You're not going to repaint the signs? You're going to paint
over it. I wasn't clear on that.
Mr. Demrovsky:
We're not going to repaint anything. None whatsoever. It will
be the same color. In fad, we'd like to paint the full building, but
temporarily we're going to try to match the existing.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Mr. Demrovsky:
The whole building is scheduled for painting this summer.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm assuming you've got a copy of the Inspector's report.
Mr. Demrovsky:
Yes, I do, in front of me.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Should this be approved, you'll have to satisfy the
Inspection Department as far as the Iisl that they provided.
January 30, 2007
23841
Mr. Demrovsky:
I will make sure that is satisfactory to them.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilshaw:
What are you going to do with the parking lot area in the back
once the Bill Brown vehicles are vacated from there?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Well, we're going to take the fence down that divides the so-
called two properties, which is really one. The asphalt itself isn't
bad. It's pretty good. Just park cars.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Are there going to be cars that you're selling through your
dealership?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Employee parking also because it's a little congested up front.
Mr. Wilshaw:
All right.
Mr. Demrovsky:
I'd like not to have any parlang up front at all except for the
customers that come in. Right now, I do have employee
parking, and they're taking up just about every one of those
front parking spaces. I want them to park in the back.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. Okay. What percentage of your business would you say
this parts operation represents compared to car sales?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Parts has been pretty good to us right now. I would say a good
75 percent at the present time.
Mr. Wilshaw:
These are parts for what kind of vehicles?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Domestic mainly. We're repackaging brake rotors, drums,
master cylinders, wheel cylinders, everyday parts that are used
on automobiles.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And what kind of cars do you sell atyour dealership?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Bertone and Pininfanno. Used to be Fiat. Fiat disappeared.
Mr.Wilshaw:
Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Did I understand you to say that you have 31 employees there?
Mr. Demrovsky:
No, no. Eight. There's 12 of us all together.
January 30, 2007
23842
Mr. La Pine:
I thought you said 31 cars were parked back there or
something. Maybe I misunderstood you. You only have eight
employees?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Only eight employees, yes, plus the management, and that's a
total of 12.
Mr. La Pine:
So once Bill Brown vacates that parcel in the back, it will just be
vacant. Is that right?
Mr. Demrovsky:
That's correct.
Mr. La Pine:
You're not thinlang about splitting that off and selling it or
anything?
Mr. Demrovsky:
No. We're not doing any of that. We need every bit of
everything.
Mr. La Pine:
You need all that space?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Well, who knows? I may have to come back before this Board
again for another addition. Whoknows?
Mr. La Pine:
To be honest with you, I've lived in Livonia for 50 years. I
always wondered how you stayed in business, because to me it
didn't look like you did any big volume of selling cars. Now you
might be, I don't know.
Mr. Demrovsky:
No, no. Cars is not our biggest thing at the moment.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, I'm not opposed to your addition. My biggest concem, I
would sure like to see something happen to the front of the
building, updated, plus gel all that stuff cleaned up in the back.
Thalwould be a big improvement.
Mr. Demrovsky:
I think with tie doors and paving and, hopefully, the Plymouth
Road Authority putting in some flower pots there in the front or
something they had in mind. I don't know if it was supposed to
be big or what, but some kind of steel railing.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, you brought up the Plymouth Road Development Authority
and you said you held up because of their plans?
Mr. Demrovsky:
That's correct.
January 30, 2007
23843
Mr. Morrow:
I think this will move forward to the City Council. It would be
nice if between now and then, you would check with the
Plymouth Road Development Authority and find out, because
its my understanding that they're starting to do a little more of
their improvement, and find out if you're part of that
improvement, because you've got some improvements that you
want to make to your site and you're holding that in abeyance
until you gel the word from them. So if you can find that out, so
that if the Council should ask about that, you can respond to
them.
Mr. Demrovsky:
I'll check with them. I'll be more than happy to check and see
what the plans are.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
That one light pole that is bending over, are you going to
straighten that out?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Yes. That's strictly a light pole; it was backed into by some
truck, and I don't know why.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you going to painllhose light poles?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Yes, we are.
Mr. LaPine:
According to the Inspection Department, there were two
freestanding signs that are illegal signs. Did you know that?
Mr. Demrovsky:
I beg your pardon?
Mr. LaPine:
They are not legal signs. They are not supposed to be there.
Mr. Demrovsky:
Oh, the used car lot sign?
Mr. LaPine:
I don't remember what they said when I was out there. I just
noticed them. They also talk about the zoning grants you were
given back these couples times here, and you never look care
of them.
Mr. Demrovsky:
That was the painting and we will do that.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine, for the benefit of our petitioner, they are preexisting
nonconforming signs. So they're not illegal. They're simply
preexisting nonconforming signs. I dont want you walking out
of there thinking you have some illegality because you don't.
January 30, 2007
23844
Mr. Demrovsky:
One sign is really, as soon as the weather gets wanner, we're
going to take it down. There's two signs on the west side. One
is really loo old up there.
Mr. Walsh:
If you did that, we'd all be happy.
Mr. Demrovsky:
We will remove it. It represents Autobahn and Autobahn was
the Volkswagon parts at one time that we carded, and Autobahn
disappeared.
Mr. LaPine:
It says, "This site does not appear to be in compliance with the
previous Zoning Grant" — this
was in 1980 -- "and Council
Resolution #367-80 in regard to removal of painted signs." So
they should have been removed back in 1980.
Mr. Walsh:
I thought you were talking about the ...
Mr. LaPine:
The nonconforming signs.
Mr. Walsh:
Sorry. My mistake.
Mr. Demrovsky:
That was the wall painting.
Mr. Walsh:
Which you addressed earlier.
Mr. Demrovsky:
Which had our name on it and parts for most imports, and that's
no longer the case. We have very little imports parts today.
Mr. Walsh:
We do have your commitment that you're going to paint those in
the spring?
Mr. Demrovsky:
Yes, I will.
Mr. Walsh:
I'm certain that will find its way into our resolution should one be
offered. Are there any additional questions? Seeing none, is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one come forward, a motion
would be in order.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I definitely agree with my fellow commissioners that I'd like to
see the site get cleaned up and have the debris that's in the
back of the lot put in there. I'd also like to see some
improvement in the general look of the building, maybe some
refreshe ding. As you said, some painting.
Mr. Demrovsky:
Yes.
January 30, 2007
23845
Mr. Wilshaw: With that, I'm going to offer an approving resolution and hope
that as this goes on to the City Council, that the petitioner will
keep those things in mind.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-08-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-01-08-01
submitted by Overseas Motors Inc. requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
existing auto sales and service dealership located at 32400
Plymouth Road in the southwest''/. of Section 27, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site and Elevation Plan marked P-1 dated
January 9, 2007, as revised, prepared by Terrence N.
Biernal, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
3. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall match
that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of
steel construction and maintained and, when not in use,
closed at all times;
4. That prior to a certificate of occupancy for the addition, the
petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following items outlined in the
correspondence dated January 23, 2007;
That the painted wall signs shall be removed and/or
painted over;
That all materials currently being stored out of the
building shall be removed, and any future outside
storage shall be strictly prohibited;
That all landscaped areas, including the right -of way,
shall be irrigated;
That the preexisting nonconforming pole sign near the
west property line shall be removed;
January 30, 2007
23846
That after Bill Brown Ford has removed its vehicles, the
security fencing around the rear parking area shall be
removed;
That all parking areas shall be repaved, repaired and
doubled striped;
-
That the front light poles shall be repaired, repainted
and/or replaced;
-
That the slats in the rear fencing shall be removed
immediately;
That the front overhead door shall be painted and/or
repaired;
5. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding on
to a nonconforming building and any conditions related
thereto;
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
7. pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the dale of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void al the expiration of said period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, if we could have clarification with respect to exactly what
needs to be corected from the list provided in the Inspection
Department letter. Condition #4 stales that he shall correct to
the Inspection Department's satisfaction the items outlined in
the correspondence dated January 23, 2007. With respect to
the painted wall signs, does that mean he will have to remove
those from both sides of the building?
Mr. Walsh: He's made that commitment.
Mr. Taormina: Okay. I'd like to include that with more specificity in the
approving resolution if we could.
Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker and Mrs. Smiley?
January 30, 2007
23847
Mr. Wilshaw: Sure.
Ms. Smiley: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: Then the resolution is so amended.
Ms. Smiley: Mark, he also offered to take down one of those preexisting
nonconforming pole signs.
Mr. Taormina: Then I think that, too, should be included in the resolution.
Mr. Demrovsky: Yes, we'll take the ...
Mr. Taormina: Will that be the Fiat sign or the other one?
Mr. Demrovsky: The lower one, the Autobahn sign.
Mr. Taormina: That's on the west side.
Mr. Demrovsky: The west side. That will be one less sign.
Mr. Walsh: Okay, and we have an agreement to that as well from Mr.
Wilshaw and Mrs. Smiley, so again the motion stands amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#2 PETITION 200540-08-20 ROSCO'S DELI
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-08-20 submitted by Rosco's Deli Coney Island, which
previously received approval by the City Council on December
12, 2005 (CR #580-05), requesting to modify one of the
conditions in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior
of the restaurant located at 36480 Plymouth Road in the
southwest % of Section 29.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting to modify one of the conditions that
was approved for Rosco's Deli Coney Island. Presently the
petitioner is in the process of renovating the interior and exterior
of the restaurant located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Levan Road and Markel Street. The City granted Site
Plan Approval (CR #580-05) on December 12, 2005. One of
January 30, 2007
23848
the conditions of approval specified 'that this approval is subject
to the removal of the existing nonconforming ground sign and
flagpole" In the request letter dated December 8, 2006, the
petitioner asks the City of Livonia to reconsider the removal of
the existing flagpole. He explains that he has had the pole
inspected and it has been determined "that the flagpole has a
solid concrete footing and does not represent danger to the
surrounding area" The condition to remove the flagpole was
included in site plan approval because of one of the concerns
listed in the correspondence dated November 10, 2005, from
the Inspection Department. Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection, wrote that the existing flagpole is leaning out of
plumb, is too close to the property line and should be removed"
The existing flagpole is located within the small landscape area
between the site's two driveways. It is somewhere in the
neighborhood of 40' feel in height and sits back approximately
3' feel from the public sidewalk. The Zoning Ordinance
specifies, "Flagpoles shall be permitted to be located within the
minimum required building setback area, provided that the
distance between the base of the pole and any lot line is not
less than the height of the flagpole." This flagpole would have
to be 40' feet back from Plymouth Road to conform. The other
stipulation in the approving condition that specified that the
existing nonconforming ground sign be removed has been
complied with. The large pole sign was removed and a new
conforming monument ground sign has been erected in its
place.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence for us to consider today?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated January 16, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of January 10, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
This noncronforming Flagpole is about 3 feet from the property
line and also about 10 feet from support poles and transmission
lines. Even if evidence from a professionally registered
engineer (not just a contractor) was submitted, there is still the
issue of the lines. This Department has no further objections to
this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mark, do we have any records of how long
that flagpole has been there?
January 30, 2007
23849
Mr. Taormina:
No. Mr. Miller checked with the Inspection Department this
evening, and there are no records.
Mr. La Pine:
My thinking here is, the flagpole was put up, and they say he
has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. Why
didn't it to go the Zoning Board of Appeals when it was originally
erected?
Mr. Taormina:
I dont think it was determined anytime prior to the review of this
petition that the flagpole was not in conformance. It probably
was under the radar screen up until the point when the
Inspection Department went out there in connection with the
restaurant expansion and renovation.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions for the staff? Seeing none, I don't
believe the petitioner is here this evening. I don't believe there
is anyone in the audience that wishes to address this item. So
its really up to our own devices.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess my position is, I went out and checked the flagpole twice
and it is as straight as it can be as far as I'm concerned. The
only thing I think there could be a question on, is the flagpole
close to the power lines. But if its been there for I don't know
how many years and the power lines and the telephone lines
have been there and it hasn't caused any problem, I don't really
see a real problem unless somebody tells me this is really a
hazard to the city in case it hits the lines. I'm one of those
patnotic guys. The more American flags I see flying, the
happier I am, especially in these tough times. So unless
somebody can convince me otherwise, I see no reason not to
allow them to keep the flagpole.
Mr. Morrow:
Inasmuch as it was a condition of approval, I would certainly like
to have the owner speak to the flagpole before I make a
decision.
Mr. Walsh:
Our choices are to approve, deny or have a tabling resolution.
You're welcome to offer any of the three.
Mr. Morrow:
If it's appropriate at this time, I would like to offer a tabling
resolution so before we move on this, we do have the benefit of
some comments from the owner, his intentions. Obviously, he
wants to keep it. I'd like to know what type of flag he's going to
fly. I'd like to know if he will conform, if it is an American flag,
that he conform with the conditions under which he can fly the
January 30, 2007
23858
American flag, and if it will be taken down or It. That type of
thing. I have offered the tabling motion.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-09-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 2005-10-08-20 submitted by Rosco's Deli Coney
Island, which previously received approval by the City Council
on December 12, 2005 (CR #580-05), requesting to modify one
of the conditions in connection with a proposal to renovate the
exterior of the restaurant located at 36480 Plymouth Road in the
southwest'''/ of Section 29.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. We have a tabling resolution to a date to be
determined. Mr. Taormina, if you could confer with the
petitioner.
NOTE: This item is continued on page 23855.
ITEM#3 PETITION 2006-01-08-02 BNR INVESTORS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
01-08-02, submitted by BNR Investors, L.L.C., which previously
received approval by the City Council on April 12, 2006 (CR
#166-06), requesting approval of a landscape plan in connection
with the development of the Cade Meadows Site Condominiums
on property located at 39905 Ann Arbor Trail in the northwest''/.
of Section 32.
Mr. Miller: On April 12, 2006, the City Council approved (CR #166-06) the
Master Deed, bylaws and site plan in connection with the
development of the Cade Meadows Site Condominiums. As
part of the approval, it was conditioned 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. The location of Cade Meadows is on the south side of
Ann Arbor Trail between Newburgh Road and Dowling Avenue.
This condominium development, which is in the beginning
stages of construction, would consist of 11 lots or units. All of
the condominium lots would front on a proposed new street that
would extend approximately 720 feet in a southerly direction
from Ann Arbor Trail and terminate in a cul-de-sac. The
submitted landscape plan demonstrates that the detention area
would be landscaped with evergreen trees, deciduous trees,
January 30, 2007
23851
and shrubs. The cul-de-sac island would have a variety of plant
materials including a single evergreen tree, a couple of
ornamental deciduous trees, and a number of shrubs. The
development's street frontage along Ann Arbor Trail would
consist of two to three (2'-3') foot high landscaped earthberms.
Buffering Cade Meadows from the street would be a number of
evergreen trees, deciduous trees, and several shrubs. A note
on the plan indicates that street trees along the developments
road right-of-way would be planted by the City of Livonia but
paid for by the developer.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is no correspondence from any department regarding this
item.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for our staff? Seeing none, I know the
petitioner is in the audience. If you could join us, please. Good
evening.
Bruce A. Michael, BNR, 6631 Emerald Lake Drive, Troy, Michigan 48085. Good
evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add or should we go straight to
questions?
Mr. Michael:
Questions are fine.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Any questions?
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Chairman, just one question for Mark. Have you checked
out all these flowers and evergreens, and are you happy with
everything that's there?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we're pretty much happy with the landscape plan as
presented. The only change we might suggest would be
consideration of full size trees in accordance with our
Recommended Species List. That would apply most likely to
the Bradford Pears, although that probably falls under a medium
size tree, and maybe the Hawthorns and Serviceberys. You
would probably look to substitute those with something from our
recommended list along the frontage.
Mr. La Pine:
Is that amenable to you?
Mr. Michael:
No objections.
Mr. LaPine:
You can work with Mark?
January 30, 2007
23852
Mr. Michael: I have in the past.
Mr. Taormina: Yes, we can work it out.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, and I don't think
there is anyone in our audience, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-10-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-01-08-02
submitted by BNR Investors, L.L.C., which previously received
approval by the City Council on April 12, 2006 (Council
Resolution #166-06), requesting approval of a landscape plan in
connection with the development of the Cade Meadows Site
Condominiums on properly located at 39905 Ann Arbor Trail in
the northwest % of Section 32, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked dated January 12, 2007,
prepared by South Hill Construction Company, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except that the
Petitioner will work with Staff to substitute certain trees in
accordance with the City's Recommended Tree Species
list;
2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition; and
5. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#166-06, which granted approval for the construction of a
site condominium development, shall remain in effect to
the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing
conditions.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
January 30, 2007
23853
Mr. Morrow: We had just indicated that some of the plantings were not on
our approved list. If you would include that in the motion as it
relates to the landscape plan, it will be part of the record.
Mr. Taormina: No problem.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. The Petitioner for Item 2 has joined us in the
audience. We're going to go to Item 4 and then we will return
back to his item.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2006-03-08-06 LEARNING EXPERIENCE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
03-08-06 submitted by Talon Development Group, on behalf of
The Learning Experience, which previously received approval
by the City Council on May 24, 2006 (CR #251-06), requesting
to amend the site plan and conditions of approval for the
construction a childcare facility on properly located at 37555
Seven Mile Road, on the north side of Seven Mile Road
between Victory Parkway and Bethany Road in the Southeast %
of Section 6.
Mr. Walsh:
I think this is fairly straightforward. If you would just give us a
brief description of this petition.
Mr. Taormina:
The petitioner is seeking to amend the approving resolution for
The Learning Experience daycare center which is to be located
on the north side of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of
Section 6. The stipulation that was provided in the original
approving Council Resolution #251-06 limited the number of
children in daycare to 180. Due to a correction made on the
licensing schedule and the number of rooms and the capacity
within that building, that number has now increased to 206.
We'd like to amend the approving resolution that would be
related to Condition #1 and change that number to 206. This
would not change the required play area, and everything else
would be in conformance with the original approving resolution.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Wilshaw:
This would also conform with the recently approved city
ordinance for children's play area, correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
January 30, 2007
23854
Mr.Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
I know we have the petitioner in the audience. Is there anything
you'd like to add? I think we've got it pretty well covered.
Michael V. Polsinelli,
President and CEO, Talon Development Group, Inc., 550
Hulel Drive, Suite 103, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302. 1
think Mr. Taormina explained it very well.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes. Just one question. Mike, did you ever get approval from
Wayne County for your curb cut off of Seven Mile Road?
Mr. Polsinelli:
We received Wayne County approval and MDEQ approval.
Both are being finalized as a result of our easement agreement
with Mr. Sherrie that just took place at the end of Iasi year.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Good. So you're still hoping to begin construction this
year?
Mr. Polsinelli:
Yes. This Spring, as soon as the weather lets up.
Mr. Walsh:
If there are no further questions, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-11-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-03-08-06
submitted by Talon Development Group, on behalf of The
Learning Experience, which previously received approval by the
City Council on May 24, 2006 (Council Resolution #251-06),
requesting to amend the site plan and conditions of approval for
the construction a childcare facility on properly located at 37555
Seven Mile Road, on the north side of Seven Mile Road
between Victory Parkway and Bethany Road in the Southeast''/.
of Section 6, be approved subjecllo the following conditions:
1. That Condition #1 of Council Resolution #251-06 shall be
amended to read as follows: That the maximum number of
children licensed for care at this facility shall be two
hundred six (206); and
2. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#251-06, which granted approval for the construction of a
childcare facility, shall remain in effect to the extent that
they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
January 30, 2007
23855
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is cared and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 (continued fmm page 23850)
PETITION 200540-08-20 ROSCO'S DELI
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-08-20 submitted by Rosco's Deli Coney Island.
Mr. Morrow: I like to make a motion to remove Petition 2005-10-08-20 from
the table.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-12-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2005-10-08-20 submitted by Rosco's
Deli Coney Island, which previously received approval by the
City Council on December 12, 2005 (CR #580-05), requesting to
modify one of the conditions in connection with a proposal to
renovate the exterior of the restaurant located at 36480
Plymouth Road in the southwest''/. of Section 29, be removed
from the table.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Wilshaw, McDermott, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: LaPine
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. Walsh: At this point, we have already had our presentation by the staff.
I'm going to ask the petitioner to please step forward. Good
evening. Sir, if we could have your name and address for the
record.
Rasko Perkovic, Rosco's Deli Coney Island, 36480 Plymouth Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48150. Good evening.
January 30, 2007
23856
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, I think a couple of our commissioners just had a question or
two to ask. We had already received a report from our staff just
before your arrival.
Mr. Perkovic:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
A couple of questions. Were you the owner at the time that you
received the approval to redo your building?
Mr. Perkovic:
Technically, I'm now leasing the building from these guys,
Burton Share Management Group.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, the reason I ask is because part of that condition was the
removal of the flagpole and that never took place. We were
wondering what your intentions were for that flagpole.
Mr. Perkovic:
The real intention was, the flagpole was leaning on one side.
Basically, if you're facing the building, on the lett, and I thought it
was not good. So then I hired the guy to check the flagpole and
inspect it, and he said that the flagpole is in great shape and the
very best condition. It just needs to be pushed back a little bit.
So then I told him, just push it back, and then I'll ask you guys to
reconsider the removal of the flagpole.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. So in other words, your intention was not to comply with
the request. You were going to appeal it subsequently.
Mr. Perkovic:
My intention was basically to see if I'm able to keep the flagpole.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. You wanted to come back and appeal it.
Mr. Perkovic:
I wanted to see what's the best for the business. That flagpole
is very nice, and it's in great shape, and I would like to put an
American flag on it. That's all.
Mr. Morrow:
So you will fly the American flag?
Mr. Perkovic:
Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Well, you know, I'm not the greatest living expert on all
the conditions for flying the flag as it relates to that. Should this
approved, I hope you would comply with those conditions in
flying the flag. If you need some insight on that, the VFW a
American Legion would have the rules and regulations for flying
it.
Mr. Perkovic:
Okay.
January 30, 2007
23857
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, sir, for coming out tonight. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#01-13-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-10-08-20
submitted by Rosco's Deli Coney Island, which previously
received approval by the City Council on December 12, 2005
(Council Resolution #580-05), requesting to modify one of the
conditions in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior
of the restaurant located at 36480 Plymouth Road in the
southwest % of Section 29, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the existing flagpole on the property shall be allowed
to remain in its present location;
2. That Condition #12 of Council Resolution #580-05 shall be
amended to delete any reference to the flagpole and shall
read as follows: That this approval is subject to the
removal of the existing nonconforming ground sign; and
3. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#580-05, which granted approval to renovate the exterior of
a restaurant, shall remain in effect to the extent that they
are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
One thing. Mark, after item two, the next two lines, 'Thal this
approval is subject to the removal of the existing nonconforming
ground sign," that's been done. That can be scratched out.
Mr. Taormina:
That's been taken care of.
Mr. LaPine:
Very good. The other question, as I walked out to talk to Mike,
how did we do it? We already had made a motion to table this.
Did we reconsider it?
Mr. Walsh:
We did. You had stepped away from the table.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Fine. I just wanted to make sure we did it legally. That's
all I got.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
January 30, 2007
23858
ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9W Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 936"' Regular Meeting held on December 12,
2006.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and una nimously adopted, it was
#01-14-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 936r" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on December 12, 2006, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Morrow, McDermott, Wilshaw, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 938" Regular
Meeting held on January 30, 2007, was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman