HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2013-11-19MINUTES OF THE 1,047rH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 1,047`h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Scott P. Bahr R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel
Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor
Members absent: Ian Wilshaw
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow 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 delenninafion 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 wnting, 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 2013-09-03-02 MARTINUZZI'S
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2013-09-
03-02 submitted by Maria and Neil Marfinuzzi, pursuant to
Council Resolution #323-13, and Section 12.08 of the Livonia
Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
determine whether or not to vacate a portion of unimproved
Curtis Road right-of-way adjacent to Lot 38 (18150 Fairfield
Avenue) in the Green Brier Estates Subdivision, located on the
east side of Fairfield Avenue between Six Mile Road and Curtis
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10.
November 19, 2013
26155
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to vacate a portion of Curtis Road right-of-way
which is currently unimproved. This parcel borders Lot 38 within
the Green Brier Estates Subdivision. The properly is located at
the northeast comer of the subdivision where Fairfield Avenue
and Curtis Road connect. As originally platted, the unimproved
portion of Curtis continues east along the north side of Lot 38.
Rotary Park borders the right-of-way to the north and to the
west of the petitioner's property, which is identified as 18150
Fairfield Avenue. There is an existing house on Lot 38 that is
located on or very near the north property line adjacent to the
unimproved portion of Curtis Road. The sideyard setback within
an RIF zoning district is required to be 25 feel. The house is
located within the setback and contains probably what is a zero
setback from the north property line. So any additions to the
house would require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Lot 38 measures about 104 feet in width by 257.00
feet, for a total lot area of 26,737 square feet or 0.61 acre. It is
a conforming RIF property where each lot is required to be at
least half an acre. The right-0f--way of Curtis Road adjacent to
the property is 43.00 feel in width. If the vacating petition is
approved, it is possible for the full width of the right-of-way
abutting Lot 38 to be fitted to the owners of Lot 38 and would in
all likelihood negate the need for any variances for minor
additions proposed to the residential structure. Combining the
vacated street with the Petitioner's property would enlarge the
property to a total of about 37,920 square feel or 0.87 acres.
Curtis Road right-of-way adjacent to Lot 38 does contain a 4.5
foot diameter storm sewer that runs close to the center of the
right-0f--way. The City Engineering Division is requesting the
dedication of a full width easement. With that, Mr. Chairman, I
can read out the departmental corespondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please.
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 6, 2013, which reads
as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced planning petition.
We have no objection to the proposed right-of-way vacation at
this time. It should be noted that the right-of-way contains a 54"
diameter public storm sewer, and as such, a full width easement
will need to be retained over the existing right-0f--Way for future
maintenance of the storm sewer." The letter is signed by David
W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer 11. We have an email
correspondence dated November 14, 2013, from Donald L. and
Barbara L. Kleinknechl, Livonia, Michigan 48154, which reads
as follows: `Do not vacate! Access to existing Livonia parkland
will be necessary for future generations. Give the homeowner
November 19, 2013
26156
the right to temporarily enjoy this right-of-way. Let them plant
their seasonal garden." That email was sent to the City by
Donald and Barbara Kleinknecht. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Neil Marlinum,
15167 MacArthur, Redford, Michigan 48239. Good evening.
This is my son, Aaron.
Mr. Morrow:
Welcome. Is there anything you would like to add to the
presentation?
Neil Marlinu=i:
As you can see, the current structure doesn't have any setback
as it should. We are working with an architect now to modify the
properly so that it will accommodate a larger structure. We
have no intention of expanding on that side of the properly other
than a possible screen porch out the back. We'd also like to be
able to put some hardscaping around our entire building so that
if Aaron is outside in the back, he can go around the property.
The previous owners did have a substantial garden there. I
think that might be the reference in the email about a garden.
I'm not exactly sure what that means.
Mr. Morrow:
So if I'm following you, there might be an occasion to build
something there, whether it's a patio or something. Is that what
caused you to look into this?
Aaron Marlinum, 15167 MacArthur, Redford, Michigan 48239. The walk around
the house would just amount to a sidewalk against the structure
from the house to the backyard. I think I speak for both of us
when I say we wouldn't alter any access to the park that's
currently in existence. We don't have any intentions in that
regard.
Mr. Morrow:
But it is a minor encroachment into the right-of-way?
Neil Marlinum:
Could you be more specific?
Mr. Morrow:
In other words, would you be building on any of this properly?
Neil Marlinum
I have an architect's rendering of the potential building that
would go into that area. It wouldn't in any way, shape or form
affect current ingress or egress out of that park. As I've gone
over there and taken care of the properly and done leaves and
Mr. Taylor: How long have you owned the property?
Neil Martinum: Mid -July.
Mr. Taylor: So you're the new owner of the property?
November 19, 2013
2615]
such, I see people going in and out of the park. Its probably 40
feel away from where this potenlial screen porch might be.
Mr. Taormina:
What this plan shows, and I'll pass it around in a second, is
there's no extension of the house due north into the right-of-
way. The addition would begin roughly here and extend pretty
close to the edge of the properly and then come across and
then down. The largest part of the addition is shown on the
southeast corner of the structure. There would be a bit of an
extension coming out the rear. It would probably gel close to
the edge of the properly. You have a couple options available
to you. The Planning Commission can pass a recommendation
on to the Council that either grants the vacating of the entire
right -0f --way, or if you feel that maybe what would suffice would
be a partial vacation of the right-of-way would be a proper. You
could indicate or recommend maybe that the south 20 feet of
the nghl-0f-way be vacated. You do have that option. What I
think is key to this is the maintenance of some kind of an
easement necessary to maintain the storm sewer that is within
the right-of-way. Picture running nghl through the center a
rather large diameter storm sewer. In discussing this with the
Engineenng Division, they would prefer up to about 40, maybe
35, feet of a maintenance easement for that, a permanent
easement to maintain that storm sewer given its depth and
some other considerations in that area. Whatever part is
vacated, we would have to work out the details in terms of how
much would be buildable. What he's talking about in doing
some hardscape, he wouldn't necessanly be precluded from
doing some of the flat work if it's patio work within that
easement area, but any part of the structure, he certainly would
be prohibited from building within any easement.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess the answer is no, he's not planning on building should
he gel this property. He has no immediate plans to build within
the newly acquired property.
Neil Martinum:
Absolutely not.
Mr. Morrow:
And then my only interest in this, as one Commissioner, is that
we maintain the easement for the sewer that runs through there.
That's where I'm coming from. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Taylor: How long have you owned the property?
Neil Martinum: Mid -July.
Mr. Taylor: So you're the new owner of the property?
Aaron Martinuzzi: I think one of the other details, correct me if I'm wrong on
this, if we do pick up that additional properly, our plan for the
new structure, we could have a greater distance from the south
properly line. Right now, I think we're 10.5 feel with our
architect's rendering that meets the City's requirement. So if we
pick up some more frontage, we could actually have greater
space between the south neighbor and our proposed new
structure.
Neil Marlinuzzi: We were advised that the setback on the south side of the lot
was 10 percent, the entire width of the lot, but it's shown on that
plan as 10.46 feet. So if the lot went up to 140 feet wide, that
setback would be 14 feet and we would be further from our
neighbor on the south.
November 19, 2013
26158
Neil Marlinuzzi:
Yes, we're the new owners.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, do you think 20 feet going to the north would open up the
sewer enough. I mean is 20 feet enough, do you think?
Mr. Taormina:
There are two issues here. There's how much of it is vacated
and then how much is retained in an easement. The City
Council will have control over both of those items. If we vacate
the entire right-of-way here, I would say they would need 35 feel
minimum. Engineering could probably live with a 35 fool
easement across that area giving him the balance, which would
be about eight feet to actually build on. That would give him
some flexibility that if there is an encroachment, 8 feel would
probably be suitable for him.
Mr. Taylor:
What's the total width of that?
Mr. Taormina:
Forty-three feel. If he gels a non -encumbered 8 feet or 7 feet
out of that, I'd say that would probably work very well for his
purposes.
Mr. Taylor:
So the resolution could read vacate 10 feel of the properly?
Mr. Taormina:
You could recommend that too as well.
Mr. Taylor:
That would make it a Iitfle cleaner as far as I'm concerned
because like you were talking about, somebody might want to
walk to the park. It would be your property if we vacated the
whole thing. So you could prohibit them from doing that, not
that you would, but I'm just saying that the cleanest way I think
to do it would be to vacate 10 feet to the north next to his
properly. Then he can do what he wants to.
Aaron Martinuzzi: I think one of the other details, correct me if I'm wrong on
this, if we do pick up that additional properly, our plan for the
new structure, we could have a greater distance from the south
properly line. Right now, I think we're 10.5 feel with our
architect's rendering that meets the City's requirement. So if we
pick up some more frontage, we could actually have greater
space between the south neighbor and our proposed new
structure.
Neil Marlinuzzi: We were advised that the setback on the south side of the lot
was 10 percent, the entire width of the lot, but it's shown on that
plan as 10.46 feet. So if the lot went up to 140 feet wide, that
setback would be 14 feet and we would be further from our
neighbor on the south.
November 19, 2013
26159
Mr. Taylor:
Well, you know you can't build on an easement. You knowthat?
Neil Marlinuzzi:
Yes.
Mr. Taylor:
So that sewer easement ...
Aaron Martinuzzi:
Is completely off limits. We understand. So the easement is
to give the county or the city access to maintain that sewer if
they need to, is my understanding.
Mr. Taylor:
I don't quite understand why we should vacate the whole piece
of properly if you dont need it, and you would have to pay tax
on the whole piece of property.
Neil Marlinuzzi:
I've been saving my money for the taxes.
Mr. Taylor:
I'm just trying to help you out.
Neil Marlinuzzi:
I appreciate it.
Mr. Bahr:
Through the Chair to Mark, I just want to make sure I'm really
clear. What Commissioner Taylor is talking about is vacating 10
feel. The alternative would be to vacate the entire thing, but
then 9 would be a separate decision to claim a certain easement
of that vacation?
Mr. Taormina:
That's coned. If you approve the vacation of the full width nght-
of-way, but condition it on retaining an easement over the north
35 feet, that would serve his purposes better because what he
has now is a wider lot to meet the setback requirements for the
addition.
Mr. Bahr:
It would serve his purpose better to vacate the whole thing and
then maintain the easement. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Taormina:
I think that's probably what would happen.
Mr. Bahr:
And the easement would keep them from developing anything
on that easement. They would still own it. So the main benefit
to them is that setback issue.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Bahr:
I apologize. I had full intention of driving by this before tonight,
and I realized as we sat down here that I didn't. Is that section
that we're talking about, is that wooded right now? I know
there's a trail head there.
November 19, 2013
26160
Mr. Taormina:
Right.
Mr. Bahr:
Does that include the trail head?
Neil Marlinum:
No, it does not.
Mr. Bahr:
So that trail head is outside of the area that we're talking about.
Neil Martinum
Its north of that.
Mr. Bahr:
So if we vacated this whole thing and maintained the easement,
since you own the property, you'd still be able to clear that if you
wanted to, clear the trees there if you wanted to since you're the
owner.
Neil Martinum:
Yes, bullhalwoukl be my worst nightmare.
Mr. Bahr:
I'm sure. You bought the properly for a reason.
Neil Martinum:
I understand you want to protect the city. So I guess I could
clear it. I think that storm sewer drain is right there. It's pretty
wet.
Mr. Taormina:
I think its already been cleared where the storm sewer is.
Mr. Bahr:
The trail head thing was my main concem.
Neil Marlinum:
Its right at the sign. There's a sign when you're coming down
Curtis to go right down Fairfield and there's another one. So at
that sign, that's where people shoot in.
Aaron Marfinuzzi:
Its right on the north edge.
Mr. Bahr:
I just dont want you to lose that great natural bike jump that's
right there.
Neil Martinum
Bikes aren't allowed back there, pal.
Mr. Bahr:
Yeah, tell that to 15 year old Scott.
Neil Martinum
I know. I know. That might be your McDonald's bag I picked up
loo.
Mr. Bahr:
Last question. So help me understand again. The setback
issue you have, I know that puts you further away from your
neighbor, but that helps you how - with the addition you want to
do?
November 19, 2013
26161
Neil Martinuzzi:
With the setback on the south side, because that gives us more
frontage, then we'd be able to be like 14 feet away from them,
which I'm sure they would probably appreciate as opposed to
10.
Aaron Martinuzzi:
It would necessitate us being 14 feet away. We could slide
the house and then also have the seven or eight feel on the
north side freed up as well.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. Thanks.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions? Seeing none, is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting
of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would
be in order.
On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-80-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanng having been
held by the City Planning Commission on November 19, 2013,
on Petition 2013-09-03-02 submitted by Mana and Neil
Martinuzzi, pursuant to Council Resolution #323-13, and
Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate a
portion of unimproved Curtis Road nghlof--way adjacent to Lot
38 (18150 Fairfield Avenue) in the Green Brier Estates
Subdivision, located on the east side of Fairfield Avenue
between Six Mile Road and Curtis Road in the Southeast 114 of
Section 10, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2013-09-03-02 be approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the subject nghl-of-way is not needed for public
access purposes;
2. That the subject right-of-way can be more advantageously
used in private ownership;
3. That a full width easement be retained over the existing
right-of-way for future maintenance of the storm sewer;
4. That vacating of the subject nghtof-way will place the
property back on the City's tax rolls; and
5. That no reporting City department or public utility has
objected to the proposed vacating.
November 19, 2013
26162
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of
the Livonia Code of Ordinance, as amended.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
I wanted to add one thing. Are you going to put something in
there aboulthe easement?
Mr. Bahr:
That's right. That's what I was thinking. We need to add that.
So yes, we'd want to add the condition that the easement be
maintained as requested by the City Engineering Department.
Mr. Morrow:
I think we have agreement on that between the maker and the
supporter. Any other discussion? Roll call please.
Mr. Morrow,
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 2013-10-03-03 SCHOOLCRAFT COLLEGE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
10-03-03 submitted by SchoolcraR College, pursuant to Council
Resolution #356-13, and Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to vacate the existing water main easement at
38701, 38703 and 38705 Seven Mile Road and 18900 Haggerty
Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between
Haggerty Road and the 1-275/96 Expressway in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Taormina: This is more or less a housekeeping item. It is a request by
Schoolcraft College to vacate an existing water main easement
that crosses a substantial portion of the campus and some of
the office zoned properties to the north that make up part of the
Seven Mile Crossing office complex. The easement is 20 feet in
width and it does not contain any public utilities. Those are in a
different location. A proper easement will be recorded over the
actual structures as they are constructed on the property or as
they exist following any approval here this evening and through
the City Council to vacate this easement. With that, I'll answer
any questions or read the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please read the correspondence
November 19, 2013
26163
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated November 6, 2013, which reads as follows: "In
accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced planning petition. We have no
objection to the proposed easement vacation at this time. It
should be noted that the owner has provided the Engineering
Department with a new easement for the revised water main
alignment that will be recorded once the existing easement is
vacated." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer 11.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
John E. Wright, Executive Director of Facilities Management, SchoolcraR
College, 18600 Haggerty Road, Livonia, MI 48152. 1 am the
representative for the college.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Is there anything you would like to add to the
presentation?
Mr. Wright:
No, sir. It is accurate.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Schoolcraft
still owns the property where the office buildings are there.
Theyre just leasing them out?
Mr. Wright:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
I notice that all of the plantings along the Six Mile corridor seem
to be missing. As one Commissioner, I fell that was blocking
the view of some portions of that site.
Mr. Wright:
Yes, that wasn't us, but they did just clear some of that. You
mean off of Seven Mile?
Mr. Morrow:
It looks much nicer. It looks much cleaner. I just wanted to
mention that.
Mr. Wright:
We pointed out the same thing and did give some advice to
them. Apparently, they took it. It does look a lot better.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order.
November 19, 2013
26164
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11 Al-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heading having been
held by the City Planning Commission on November 19, 2013,
on Petition 2013-10-03-03 submitted by Schoolcraft College,
pursuant to Council Resolution #356-13, and Section 12.08 of
the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine whether or not to vacate the existing
water main easement at 38701, 38703 and 38705 Seven Mile
Road and 18900 Haggerty Road, located on the south side of
Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the 1-275/96
Expressway in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2013-10-03-03 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the water main easement was never constructed as
recorded;
2. That the alternate easement correctly describes the
location of the water main as it exists; and
3. That no reporting City department or public utility has
objected to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above heading was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of
the Livonia Code of Ordinance, as amended.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr. Wright:
One thing I might point out is that Seven Mile, that 18900, 1 think
that should be 18600 if that's defending to the college's address.
Mr. Taylor
Direct that to Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Taormina:
Duly noted.
Mr. Morrow:
Just check that out and correct it if it needs to be corrected.
November 19, 2013
26165
ITEM #3 PETITION 2013-10-06-01 MASSAGE THERAPIST
LANGUAGE AMENDMENT
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
10-06-01
01310-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #331-13, and Section 23.01(a) of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether
or not to amend Section 2.08(14) of Article II, Section 9.03(m) of
Article IX, Section 10.03(m) of Article X, Section 11.03(u) of
Article XI, and Section 30.04(c) of Article XXX of the Livonia
Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, so as to comply with
State law regarding licensure of massage therapists and to
provide for local oversight of compliance with state regulation.
Mr. Morrow:
This petition was brought forward by the City Planning
Commission. With that, we're going to gel some input for the
audience and the community relative to this petition.
Mr. Taormina:
This is a language amendment that comes to us by way of the
Law Department in an effort to comply with statutory changes
that go into effect at the end of this month dealing with massage
licensure requirements. The new law would basically prohibit
Michigan municipalities from requiring massage therapists to be
licensed. As of that date, November 29, 2013, only the State
licensing requirements will apply. It was cited at the beginning
of this item the various sections of the ordinance that deal with
massage therapy zoning restrictions, but there is language in
each one of those sections that refers to another chapter in our
Code of Ordinances mandating the licensing requirement. So it
was necessary to stake all of that language as it relates to the
licensing requirements. This does not affect the requirement to
obtain a waiver use for massage establishments. That will not
change. That will still be the domain of the Planning
Commission and City Council to review those types of uses
from the standpoint of zoning and compliance with our general
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 19.06.
Mr. Morrow:
That's a very fine explanation. Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public
hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-82-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanng having been
held by the City Planning Commission on November 19, 2013,
on Petition 2013-10-06-01 submitted by the City Planning
November 19, 2013
26166
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #331-13, and
Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.08(14) of Article
II, Section 9.03(m) of Article IX, Section 10.03(m) of Article X,
Section 11.03(u) of Article XI, and Section 30.04(c) of Article
XXX of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, so
as to comply with Stale law regarding licensure of massage
therapists and to provide for local oversight of compliance with
stale regulation, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-10-06-01 be
approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendments corresponds
with legislation recently passed by the Stale of Michigan
prohibiting municipalities from requiring massage
therapists to be licensed;
2. That the proposed language amendment would remove the
unenforceable provisions from the Zoning Ordinance
regarding local licensing requirements; and
3. That the proposed language amendments are in the best
interests of the City and its residents.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above headng was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taylor: Mark, does this negate our Inspection Department? I know
these licenses last for three years, right? What if something
goes wrong with the establishment? Does our Inspection
Department still have the rule of thumb, so to speak, over what
happens at the massage establishment?
Mr. Taormina: I don't know where their authority begins and ends relative to
making sure that State law is being adhered to in these cases.
While it may be contained in the ordinance that the City is going
to maintain some oversight, I'm not sure how the enforcement
aspect of it would handled, quite frankly. That's probably a
question for our legal department.
Mr. Taylor: It might be a good idea for the Council to know exactly what
authority we have over that in case something were to go wrong
at one of these establishments. It has happened in the past, I
guess, from what I've heard.
November 19, 2013
2616]
Mr. Taormina: It will be reflected in the minutes. I would hope that the question
could be answered prior to the meeting.
Mr. Taylor: Should something go in the resolution then to try and help that
out?
Mr. Taormina: Has that been added? I'm sorry.
Mr. Morrow: I guess he was asking the question if something to that effect
should be added to the resolution. I would just suggest that we
leave the resolution as is and if you would just pass that along
and make sure the Council is aware of the City's responsibility
as it relates to what Mr. Taylor was talking about.
Mr. Taormina: I'm actually going back, Mr. Taylor, to the letter to the Council
from the Law Department wherein they indicated that it would
be through our zoning ordinance compliance permit procedures
that the City would have a tool of enforcement. As I see it, we
still have that ability with these changes.
Mr. Taylor: Verygood. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #4 PETMON 2013-10-08-12 LIVONIA COMMONS
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
10-08-12 submitted by Tobeck Really Corporation requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to redevelop the
commercial center (Livonia Commons), including remodel the
exlenor, building addition and construct a stand-alone multi -
tenant commercial building, at 13505-13507 Middlebelt Road,
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX
Railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to develop the commercial center that is
located at the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft
Roads. The site presently contains a vacant commercial
building that has an outdoor garden center. The center is about
136,000 square feet in total size, not including the garden
center. The most recent occupant of the building was Wal-Mart.
November 19, 2013
26168
The company moved that store to Wonderland Village several
years ago. Overall, the property is about 14.65 acres with 705
feel of frontage along Middlebelt. It also has about 300 feet of
frontage along Schoolcraft Road to the north, and a similar
amount of frontage along Industrial Road to the south. The
properly is zoned is C-2, General Business. The aerial
photograph shows the boundaries of the property and the
improvements that are currently located on the site, most
notably the large commercial building which is on the west side
of the property. Al the north end, the small rectangular area
denotes the covering over the garden center. In the southeast
corner is the location of a TCF bank. There is a narrow portion
of the properly that is located on the south side of the TCF bank
and that is part of the overall parcel that extends all the way to
Middlebell Road on the north side of Industrial Road. The plans
would completely remodel the interior and exterior of the
existing building. The existing building would be subdivided into
four separate large units. The northern most unit, totaling
53,355 square feel, would contain a Dick's Sporting Goods.
Adjacent to that unit to the south is a 24,000 square fool unit
that would be occupied by Jo Ann Fabrics. The two remaining
units to the south are identified as "Retail A" and "Retail B" and
would be 29,530 square feel and 26,169 square feel,
respectively. The garden center, located along the north side of
the building, would be completely removed and in its place a
7,650 square fool building addition would be constructed to the
northeast corner of the building. The new addition is identified
as "Retail C" and could be subdivided into three tenant units.
The entire storefront of the existing building would be
completely upgraded. The building's appearance would be
dominated by three primary building materials which include
brick, a burnish block and an E.I.F.S. material. Another feature
of the site plan is the addition of a free-standing, all masonry
building which is located in front of Retail "A" and "B." It would
be about 8,640 square feel in size. It would be set back roughly
80 feel from the right-of-way of Middlebell Road allowing for a
drive aisle and parking on both sides. This building could be
subdivided into four tenant spaces. There are no additional
curb cuts provided for access to this oulparcel building. Access
would be via the connection to the shopping center's existing
parking aisleways. In terms of future potential development on
this site, the plans show the possibility of a restaurant of about
3,000 square feet in size located in the northeast corner of the
site, but that is not a feature for tonight's consideration. That is
something that would have to come back before this body and
the City Council for final approval. Storm water management
would be handled south of the building along Industrial Road. It
would include a detention basin and a forebay located between
November 19, 2013
26169
the existing building and Industnal Road. The parking layout of
the redevelopment would be similar to the current arrangement.
Access to the site would be the same as it is today, via the
existing drives located off Middlebelt, Industnal and SchoolcraR
Roads. There would be some reconfiguration of those
driveways. In your packets is a traffic analysis that was
conducted by Clearzoning, Inc. that describes in detail the
reasons for the changes. There would be minor changes to the
north on SchoolcraR to align this driveway into the site with the
crossover. There would also be a slight shift of the north
driveway off of Middlebelt Road to accommodate the future
development of the restaurant pad. This approach would allow
for the exiling of vehicles onto Middlebelt Road. It would not
allow for Teff turns onto Middlebelt Road. It would allow for right
Tums into the site and for northbound vehicles on Middlebelt
Road to turn left into the site. Unlike the north driveway, the
south driveway would be completely reconfigured to allow for
"right in" and "right out" turns. There would be no left hand turn
movements permitted from the south approach on Middlebelt
Road due primarily to the proximity of the signalized intersection
a Iitfle bit further to the south at Industrial Road and also the
other drive approach to Costco. Lastly, we have alignment
changes to the driveway on Industnal Road to match up with the
main driveway entering the Menards site located directly to the
south. Parking for the project is based on the total amount of
retail floor space. For units that are greater than 30,000 square
feet, like Dick's Sporting Goods, the parking is based on a ratio
of one space per 160 square feet of useable floor area. For the
other units, parking is based on a ratio of one space per 150
square feet of useable floor area. When all this is added
together, the total amount of parking needed is 779 parking
spaces. That is according to our ordinance. This plan shows a
total of 700 spaces but includes the Iandbanking of 35 parking
spaces. We discussed this item with the petitioner in terms of
the overall parking ratios being consistent with other new
developments in the community, like that of Livonia
Marketplace. They feel comfortable that the number of spaces
on this site will be adequate. Also when they look at
opportunities to provide additional spaces needed to safisfy the
ordinance, they would ask this body's favorable
recommendation of banking those spaces because from a
practical standpoint, they really wouldn't be utilized because of
their separation from the buildings. The areas proposed to be
banked include the spaces along both the east and west sides
of the driveway extending off Industrial Road and then the
additional spaces located in the extreme southwest corner of
the site. Landscaping overall represents 15 percent of the total
site, which is in compliance with the ordinance. The
November 19, 2013
261]0
landscaping include the areas around the detention basin,
around the driveways, parking lot islands within the entire
parking lots areas and then along Middlebelt Road. We've
asked the developer to use the same plant materials and
hardscape features that are being done further to the south in
front of the Goodwill, Applebee's and Del Taco. We want to
establish a consistent landscape theme along this stretch of
Middlebelt Road, and the petitioner is willing to do their part in
accomplishing that. In terms of trash enclosures, they are
showing four separate trash enclosures on the site. There are
two at the rear of the existing building. There is one on the west
side of Retail "C" lucked in the comer. The fourth one, which
would service the outparoel, is located between the building and
the TCF bank along the south property line. Lastly, regarding
signage, each tenant space of the retail buildings would be
allowed one wall sign based on 1 square fool for each 1 lineal
foot of building frontage. Because this site has more than 200
feet of frontage, they are allowed two monument signs. They
are showing a total of three ground signs. There would be two
multi -panel pylon signs, each at 20 feel in height and 72 square
feet in sign area. One would be located on SchoolcraR Road
near the main entrance on the north end of the site, and one
located off Middlebelt Road close to the north entrance. The
third ground sign would contain four tenant panels and measure
6 feet in height and 35 square feel in sign area. This sign would
be located along the north side of Industrial Road to help
northbound traffic on Middlebelt Road lake advantage of the
signalization and come in off of Industrial and into the site
thereby relieving some of the traffic that would otherwise have
to go to the north driveway to tum Teff into the site. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to read the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: That was a very fine presentation. Please go ahead and read
the correspondence.
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 30, 2013, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced planning petition.
The legal description provided with the petition paperwork does
adequately describe the proposed subject parcel, but we would
prefer to use the legal description included with the submitted
plan set. Although both legal descriptions are technically
correct, the description included with the plan set has a smaller
error of misclosure, as well as more precise bearings and
distances. The prefsmed legal description is as follows: A parcel
of land being part of the northeast X of Section 26, T. 1 S., R. 9
E., City of Livonia, being more particularly described as:
November 19, 2013
26171
Commencing at the northeast comer of said Section 26, thence
along the east line of said Section 26, due South 352.00 feet,
thence S 89' 56'21" W, 60.00 feet to the west line of Middlebelt
Road (variable width) and the Point of Beginning, thence along
the west line of Middlebelt Road, due South 704.86 feet, thence
S 89' 49' 00" W, 250.00 feet, thence due South 160.00 feet,
thence N 89' 49'00" E, 250.00 feet to the aforementioned west
line of Middlebelt Road, thence along said west line, due South
25.00 feet, thence S 58' 54'05" W, 29.20 feet to the north line
of Industrial Drive (60 foot wide); thence along said north line, S
89' 49'00" W, 621.57 feet, thence 109.74 feet along an arc of a
curve to the right, having a radius of 70.00 feet and a chord that
bears N 45' 05'30" W, 98.84 feet, thence due North 910.48 feet
to the south line of Schoolcraft Road (variable width); thence
along said south line the following thme (3) courses: N 89' 56'
21" E, 81.57 feet and S 80' 54' 18" E, 75.95 feet and N 89' 56'
21" E, 310.00 feet, thence due South 62.00 feet, thence N 89'
56' 21" E, 250.00 feet to the aforementioned west line of
Middlebelt Road and the Point of Beginning. Containing 14.648
acres of land more or less. An address of 13507 Middlebelt
Road should be used in connection with this petition. Additional
addresses for outiots and/or individual tenants within the
buildings will be assigned by the Engineering Department at a
later date. The submitted plans show on-site detention to be
provided for the areas that are renovated under the proposed
plan. The calculations appear to provide the required storm
water detention volumes, but we will need to wait for full
engineering and grading plans before we can approve the
proposed system. We would like to request that the owner look
at combining the proposed detention outlet pipe with the existing
storm sewer along the west edge of the property. This would
allow the storm water outflow to utilize existing piping, and keep
the owner from having to make a second crossing of Industrial
Road. Also, we will ask that the owner provide water quality
structures, such as a Vorthechnics or Stommeptor, on the
existing storm sewer lines that are not being routed through the
detention basin prior to exiting the site. Water services for the
proposed buildings are not shown on the submitted drawings.
The existing building is currently serviced by an 8" dead-end
private water lead running along the west edge of the property.
In order to service the proposed outiots, the owner will need to
install new water services to each proposed building. There are
existing 12" public water mains on the south side of Schoolcraft
Road and the east side of Middlebelt Road, as well as a 16"
public water main on the south side of Industrial Drive. It would
be our preference that the owner install a privately owned,
looped water main through the parcel to service all of the
proposed buildings. With any proposed layout, the owner will
November 19, 2013
261]2
need to meet current hydrant spacing and hose -lay length
standards. Sanitary service leads for the proposed outiots are
not shown on the plans. There is an existing 18" sanitary sewer
running along the west side of Middlebelt Road that is available
for services to the proposed buildings. The existing building will
be able to utilize its current sewer lead, although the owner will
need to have the lead televised to determine whetherit is still in
acceptable condition. Any proposed work within the Middlebelt
Road right-of-way, including proposed utility services and
approach renovations, will require permits from the City of
Livonia as well as from Wayne County. A soil erosion and
sedimentation control (SESC) permit will be required and
involve separate plans to be submitted since the proposed site
renovations are one acre or more, or within 500 feet of a lake or
stream. This permit and associated fees will be handled by the
City of Livonia's Engineering Department before any work
commences." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated
October 30, 2013, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the
plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the
proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated September, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of September 28, 2012, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to
maintain the ground sign as proposed. (2) A variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the
deficient number of parking spaces. (3) Parking spaces are
required to be 10'X 20' and double striped. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Are there any questions of the
Planning Director?
Mr. Taylor: Mark, what is the height of the sign on the south end of the
properly?
Mr. Taormina: That sign is identified on the plans as being six feet in height.
Mr. Taylor: I know we had a problem with Applebee's and they were
complaining that the bank property blocks all those signs down
there. I'm just wondering how effective that sign will be.
Coming from the south, you could lake a left hand tum in there,
but I just dont know how effective it would be coming from the
November 19, 2013
261]3
north. Obviously they will pick up the other sign coming from
the north.
Mr. Taormina: Correct. I think that's the idea there.
Mr. Taylor: And did you say the landscaping is 15 percent or better?
Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Fifteen percent.
Ms. Scheel: Can you go back to the road map you had up there previously?
Thank you. When you put your pointer on Industrial Drive and
go all the way over, is that an opening there to come out or not?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Ms. Scheel: So that is an opening area to come out. I didn't think it was
when I looked at it.
Mr. Taormina: It doesn't show well on the rendered site plan. Let's see if we
have a plan that better shows it.
Ms. Scheel: If they are saying it is, I will accept that. I just wanted to make
sure.
Mr. Taormina: The curb details just dont show up on that.
Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? We can go the petitioner. He' standing at the
podium so I think he's done this before? We will need your
name and address for the record please.
Mark Drane, Rogvoy Architects, 32500 Telegraph Road, Suite 250, Bingham
Farms, Michigan 48025. 1 love coming here because Mark
gives the presentation. He's done a very nice job. I'm here to
answer any questions.
Mr. Morrow: Well, we'll give you an opportunity to add anything and then
we'll see if we have any questions for you.
Mr. Dmne: I had some correspondence with Mark after our study session,
and we agreed with the owner that we'd lower our pylon sign. I
think we wanted it to be somewhere between 14 and 16 feel.
We're happy to do that. The curb cut they were talking about on
Industnal Drive to the west, that's an existing cut. That allows
us to keep our truck traffic separate from our customer traffic.
We're really excited about taking something that's been such a
problem and a challenge for us and being able to turn it into
November 19, 2013
261]4
something we're proud of. Thank you for all your input, and like
I said, I'm here to answer any questions.
Mr. Morrow:
I think you can assume that we are all also equally excited to be
developing that piece of property. It looks like we have a good
plan before us but we'll have some questions, I'm sure. Are
there any questions?
Mr. Bahr:
I have questions about the parking and the signs. The 700
spaces you're showing now, the comment was made that that
was adequate for you. Is that what you feel you need or do you
feel like that's possibly in excess of what you need?
Mr. Drane:
It has been my experience in most modem developments of this
type that a parking ratio of 4.5 cars for every 1,000 square feet
of general gross retail has been an appropriate amount of
parking spaces. It used to be that we were trying to park
probably 6.5 per 1,000. We're trying to park for one day of the
year. What we're finding out is that they were wrong. We were
wrong in that idea of over-parking and the way the shopping
seasons are spread out, Black Fnday through Chnstmas Eve,
this parking ratio is perfectly adequate. This parking ratio is the
same parking ratio that we have at Livonia Marketplace.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. I do remember Mark saying that. Thank you for that.
With the signs, so there's the six fool sign at the south end on
Middlebelt, there's the 14 to 16 fool sign at the north end, and
then the same size of sign on Schoolcratt.
Mr. Drane:
Yes.
Mr. Bahr:
Just help me understand your reasoning there. The tall sign on
the north end makes total sense to me. The sign out on
Schoolcraft, what's the reasoning for why that one needs to be
one of the tall signs as well?
Mr. Drene:
Speed of traffic and the amount of traffic that is there.
Hopefully, we're going to gel a glimpse of it from the highway.
That's the reason for the height. When you asked me the other
day, why did you pick 20 feet? Well, that would have been a
good answer had I thought of it at the time, but 20 feet would
have been a little bit better to be able to see up the hill to the
sign from the freeway.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. I think that's the end of my questions. I'll just comment
for the record. We've had plenty of sign discussions up here
recently just with the booming development in that area. There
seems to be a signs race going on along Middlebell. Clearly,
November 19, 2013
261]5
this is beyond what our ordinance would allow. I typically think
that as a Planning Commission it's our role to hold to those
ordinances. I think they're there for a reason. There's a certain
look we're trying to gel in the City. I think that look has served
surrounding communities well, and that would be my
preference. That being said, recent developments, even in the
last 24 hours, some surrounding businesses have been granted
taller signs by the Council. Certainly if the Applebee's and the
Del Taco signs go through with the Zoning Board of Appeals, it
would only make sense that this development would gel signs
that would match that. I'm probably more open to that than I
was even a few weeks ago when we dealt with those other
properties. That being said, I just wanted to say for the record
that my preference would still be that we hold to our ordinance.
I think when we go to surroundings communities, I have Canton
in mind specifically, down around Ford Road which I would think
is probably similar traffic volumes to this heavy retail dislncl.
Theyve held to their sign ordinance and it creates very much
the uniform look that we're looking for. That would definitely be
my preference and if the Applebee's and Del Taco signs would
be held to the ordinance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, I
would hope they would do the same with this, but by no means
do I see, in light of the other sluff that's happened, that being an
issue that should keep this from moving forward because,
fmnkly, I wish you'd start construction on this yesterday. So
that's my comments. Thanks for answering my questions.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, you've done it again. You've brought us another nice
project. You've been here before in Livonia I know.
Mr. Trane:
I've been here a few times. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
This is very exciting. Many people have asked me many times
what's going on at that corner. Is anything ever going to
happen? Its good that we are having something happen. Is it
pretty popular what you're doing? I've heard recently that they
usually don't put a building up until they have a tenant any
more. I know you've got a couple tenants. Is it
pretty
popular
what you're doing over there? Is there a lot of discussion
that
they would like to go in over there?
Mr. Dmne:
The market today is fill up existing space. I'm doing it all over
Metro Detroit. Its by far the biggest amount of work we're doing
right now. Back in the 80's we were de-malling. Back in the
90's and 2000's, we were building new shopping centers. It's
reached a critical mass and tenants were falling out of favor.
These buildings are there to use and retailers like the rent
numbers because there's an existing structure to use. That's all
November 19, 2013
261]6
we've been doing. We've been splitting space and redesigning
facades. So that's the primary market out there right now.
Hopefully, when all those spaces are filled up, we'll start building
new shopping centers again, but it's going to take a while.
Mr. Taylor:
Upon approval, are you expecting to go ahead with it right
away?
Mr. Drane:
Yes.
Mr. Taylor:
This year?
Mr. Drane:
We're working on the design development documents right now.
We're coordinating with Dick's with their interior improvement
plans. We're working with Jo-Ann with their interior improvement
plans. We expect by the middle of February we'll have
documents done, ready for bid and break ground in the spring.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I'll just jump in here for a minute then we can go back to
questions. Why don't you lake us through the building materials
and the colors.
Mr. Drane:
Can I grab my sample board? I remembered my sample board
this time.
Mr. Morrow:
Good. We would not want you to forget that.
Mr. Drane:
Right now the building is primarily brick. Part of the brick we're
going to be painting. All the new masonry is the darker masonry
you'll see at the very bottom of the board. The burnish block is
a decorative block that we've been using, which is a very high
quality material. It's a polish face. We're using that as many of
the accent bands around the base of the building. Same thing
with the split face block, also a decorative material that brings
some scale and texture into the buildings. Any of the E.I.F.S.
material that you see is always up high away from the ability of
anybody to touch it or hit it with a snow shovel. So they're
decorative items that are up high that you'll see on either side of
each of the entries and some of the entry features. Again,
they'll have "v' grooves and traditional cornices on top of them.
For Jo-Ann Fabrics we're trying to pull some of the green
banding that you see on the Dick's on either side of the Jo-Ann
entry to get a theme of the dark green coming across the
facade. The idea of the facade is always to try to break up the
box. You dont want to have big expansive walls of the same
materials. That was always the big criticism of big box retail.
November 19, 2013
26177
We've overcome that by creating taller entrances, using
different colors of materials, different colors of masonry units.
That's the concept. It's quite simple. It's effective and it's been
very successful.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Commission?
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, would you like him to also run by the materials on
the other retail building, the oulparcel building?
Mr. Drene:
The primary material on that building is the brick material you
see on the base of the board. There we're using a split face
block and a burnish block along the base, the pedestal, the
darker masonry. We're also using fabric awnings, traditional
cornices out of the E.I.F.S. material. The idea is that this will be
a multi -tenant building. The parapets are designed so that
they'll screen the rooftop units from all sides. It's a similar
building to that 7,400 square foot end cap building to the north.
Its going to be all brick materials.
Mr. Morrow:
So it will blend right in.
Mr. Drane:
With a decorative base.
Ms. Scheel:
Are the building materials here similar to what you used at the
Livonia Marketplace?
Mr. Drene:
All the masonry materials are, yes. At Livonia Marketplace we
did a lot of different things with the colors of the E.I.F.S. There's
some light blue and some terra cotta colors. We thought that
was a Iittie too much for this development because its so close
to the road.
Ms. Scheel:
But the brick materials are the same?
Mr. Drene:
Yes, they are.
Ms. Scheel:
Thankyou.
Mr. Bahr:
When do you anticipate starting construction assuming this
goes through and when do you anticipate Dick's being open?
Mr. Drene:
Hopefully, we can start some site construction and some
demolition work in February.
Mr. Bahr:
Do you have an idea when the retail stores would be open
then?
November 19, 2013
261]8
Mr. Drene:
We expect to the tum the Dick's Sporting Goods over July 15.
Mr. Bahr:
Thanks.
Mr. Drane:
Its a very aggressive schedule, and my heart rate just got a little
high just saying that.
Mr. Morrow:
Anything else?
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I could just recognize one person in the
audience. Howard Schwartz is the other architect of this deal. I
know he worked quite tirelessly to bring the two pnmary tenants
to the site. I dont know if he wants to say anything.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Schwartz, do you want to make any comments on this? We
certainly appreciate your efforts.
Howard Schwartz, 30054 Orchard Lake Road, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334.
1 haven't prepared any remarks but I can share with you that the
family that has built the building is the same family that owns it
today. That was almost 50 years ago. Its been a very rough
economic market for this kind of space to gel first quality
tenants. We've turned down tenants that have come to us that
were good tenants, but not first rate goods. They were used
goods. So we're very pleased to have Dick's. We have been
calling on them to move their Westland store for five, six years.
So to get two first quality tenants is a major accomplishment in
today's marketplace, and we have a number of prospects for the
balance of the space. It's just not been easy to convert them.
Some of the first quality tenants have said no and we feel very
confident that once the project is built and people will respect
the location and trade in and the importance of the intersection,
that we will f11 that, but it's still economically very challenging.
The small building is an important building to the landlord, as is
the outlol, as is the 7,600 square feet, but as the economy starts
to get a little shaky, it will lake a lot of confidence on the
retailers' parts to come up but I think this development will prove
to be very valuable for those retailers. It will serve the
community very well. The owners are long term holders so
they're going to take well care of it and we're pleased to be
here. It took a long time to get here. I'll welcome any of your
questions.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to make a comment because you mentioned Dick's.
As Mr. Taylor indicated, this is the area of the city that's
probably our most asked question is, what's going to happen to
the old Walmart site. In addition to that, we can't sell Jo -Ann
Fabncs short because when they closed at the old Sears site,
November 19, 2013
261]9
people have really complained about why did they leave. So I
think they'll be walking into a real good customer base here in
the Livonia area.
Mr. Schwartz:
What they have done is chosen Livonia over Westland.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that right?
Mr. Schwartz:
Yes. And they shut down the Westland store thinking they
could service the customer in Canton Township. They came to
realize that that probably is not in their best interest over time.
They saw what the customer spot studies were, and when they
looked at analyzing where should they put a store to service
these customers, they chose Livonia and we're proud of it.
Mr. Morrow:
They will be welcomed back, I'm sure.
Mr. Schwartz:
I think they will be well served.
Mr. Morrow:
Its a good tenant. Thank you. Is there anything else?
Mr. Bahr:
Again, out of curiosity. You mentioned Jo-Ann's. Is that the
same situation with Dick's? Is that a store moving from
somewhere else or is that a totally new store?
Mr. Schwartz:
That is a Westland relocation. That's correct.
Mr. Bahr:
I wasjust curious. Thanks.
Mr. Schwartz:
I'll be very happy to take my signs down.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-83-2013
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-10-08-12
submitted by Tobeck Really Corporation requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to redevelop the commercial center
(Livonia Commons), including remodel the exterior, building
addition and construct a stand-alone multi-tenant commercial
building, at 13505-13507 Middlebelt Road, located on the west
side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad nghl-0f-way
and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
November 19, 2013
26180
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA dated October 25,
2013, as revised, prepared by Rogvoy Arohitects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the petitioner shall be allowed to bank the parking
spaces as shown on the above -referenced site plan;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked L-1.0 dated October 23,
2013, prepared by Professional Engineenng Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. 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;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets
A-1 and A-2 both dated October 25, 2013, as revised,
prepared by Rogvoy Architects, are hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
7. 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;
8. That the three walls of the trash dumpsler area(s) shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gales shall be of solid panel
steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel
fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all
times;
9. That this site shall meet either the City of Livonia or the
Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance,
whichever applies, and shall secure any required permits,
including soil erosion and sedimentation control permits;
10. That all light fixtures shall not exceed thirty-five (35') feel in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
November 19, 2013
26181
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadways;
11. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
parking and any conditions related thereto;
12. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this
petition, and any additional signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
13. That the freestanding signs for this development shall be
limited to the signs portrayed on the above referenced Site
Plan, subject to variance(s) being granted by the Zoning
Board of Appeals for excess sign area and excess number
of signs, and that the pylon signs shall not exceed a height
of fourteen (14') feet. Any additional signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
14. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
15. 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
16. 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 date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Morrow: Did I hear 14 feet?
Mr. Taylor: That's what I heard.
Ms. Scheel: That's what I did.
Mr. Morrow: Okay.
Mr. Taylor: You brought it down two feel.
Ms. Scheel: I brought it down to be equal to what the City Council approved
for the other signs. You can choose to change it.
November 19, 2013
26182
Mr. Taylor:
No, I have no problem with it.
Mr. Morrow:
Just as a point of order, I wanted to make sure.
Mr. Taormina:
Our standard condition as it relates to the height of light poles is
20 feet for most retail centers, We do allow height exceptions
for the larger centers. I picked up on that thinking that they
were going to request maybe 30 feel. Unfortunately, we didn't
gel a change to change the resolution, but Mr. Drane has
indicated the plans spec out right now at 35 feel. I don't know if
you want to have a discussion before you vote as to whether or
not to amend that to something a little taller possibly, to what
they've identified on the plans.
Mr. Morrow:
So it is 35 feel on the plan?
Mr. Taormina:
It is 35 feel on the plan.
Mr. Morrow:
Well then we'll see how the Commission feels about that.
Apparently, the petitioner would like to go higher than the 20
feel, which is our standard. Their reasoning is because of the
setback and the size of the building.
Mr. Taylor:
Al that particular center, there are no homes around R. I don't
think there's a problem with that.
Ms. Scheel:
I would agree to go with 35 due to that reasoning.
Mr. Morrow:
Who was the maker and supporter?
Ms. Scheel:
I was the maker.
Mr. Taylor:
I supported it.
Mr. Morrow:
That takes care of that.
Ms. Scheel:
So we'll adjust that from 20 feel to 35 feel.
Mr. Morrow:
Exactly.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. We appreciate you coming tonight.
Mr. Taylor:
Mr. Chairman, before we move on, I know, Mark, there's only a
couple more Council meetings this year. I'm just wondering if
they need a seven day waiver to gel on their agenda.
November 19, 2013
26183
Mr. Morrow:
Is the 16th the last one?
Ms. Scheel:
Yes.
Mr. Taylor:
They mentioned last night there's only a couple more meetings.
Mr. Taormina:
I think they make the 161h, don't they?
Ms. Scheel:
We could do a waiver and if they don't need it, they don't.
Mr. Taormina:
I think that's probably the appropriate thing to do.
Ms. Scheel:
Right.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you, Mr. Taormina/
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-84-2013
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2013-10-08-12 submitted by Tobeck Realty
Corporation requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
redevelop the commercial center (Livonia Commons), including
remodel the exterior, building addition and construct a stand-
alone multi -tenant commercial building, at 13505-13507
Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebett Road
between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcmft Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Is there anything else?
Mr. Drane:
I just wanted to thank everybody. Everybody has been very
professional and very helpful, and its always a pleasure doing
business here in Livonia. We're proud of what we're doing here,
and looking forward to finishing it up. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you for coming. Thanks to all of you for coming.
November 19, 2013
26184
ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,046m Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,046'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on October 29, 2013.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-85-2013 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,046th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October
29, 2013, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Scheel, Smiley, Bahr, Taylor, Morrow
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Wilshaw
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 405" Special Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 405h Special Regular Meeting held on November
12, 2013.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and adopted, it was
#11-86-2013 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 405" Special Regular Meeting
held by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2013, are
hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Taylor, Scheel, Bahr, Smiley, Morrow
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Wilshaw
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
November 19, 2013
26185
Mr. Morrow: One thing I wanted to mention. Our audience has diminished,
but hopefully our vast television audience is still out there. The
Commission wants to congratulate Commissioner Scheel for her
election to the Livonia City Council. We will miss you. You've
been a real asset to the Commission. I think I speak for all of
us. We've enjoyed the pleasure of working with you.
Ms. Scheel: Thank you very much.
Ms. Smiley: I'll supportthat.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,047'" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 19, 2013, was adjourned at
8:25 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman