HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2014-04-01MINUTES OF THE 1,053 RD PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, Aril 1, 2014, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 1,053' 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 Elizabeth McIntyre R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: None
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Progmm
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 recommendafion is forwarded to the City
Council for the final delemiinafion as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2014-02-01-02 NPM ACQUISITIONS
Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition
2014-02-01-02 submitted by NPM Acquisitions L.L.C. pursuant
to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 27403 and
27451 Schoolcraft Road, located on the southwest comer of
Schoolcraff and Inkster Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
25, from OS (Office Services) and M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to
C-2 (General Business).
April 1, 2014
26324
Mr. Taormina: This is a request by NPM Acquisitions to rezone two properties,
27403 and 27451 Schoolcrafl Road from OS, Office Services,
and M-1, Light Manufacturing, to C-2, General Business. The
properties are contiguous to each other and are owned in
common. They are located at the southwest corner of
Schoolcrafl and Inkster Roads. The combined area of both
properties is approximately 2.13 acres, including 434 feel of
frontage along Schoolcrafl Road and 207 feel of frontage along
Inkster Road. The larger of the two properties contains a
22,800 square foot building that was originally constructed as a
grocery store but was later rezoned and used for industrial
purposes, mainly as a photographic processing center. To the
west and south are a variety of industrial buildings zoned M-1
and M-2. To the east across Inkster Road is Redford Township
and to the north is the 1-96 Expressway. The requested C-2
zoning is in anticipation of redeveloping this site for commercial
purposes. I'll give you a little bit of the history of the properly.
This is a survey of the existing conditions. Prior to 1972, the
zoning was C-2 reflecting the use of the site for a grocery store.
In 1972, the City Planning Commission on its own motion
rezoned the property to Office and the City Council concurred in
that rezoning. In 1980, the properly was rezoned from Office to
M-1. Again, this is the larger of the two properties containing
the building. It was rezoned to M-1 in order to accommodate
North American Photo. The comer parcel was excluded at that
time because it was under different ownership. A development
concept has been submitted with the rezoning application which
shows how the site might be developed should the rezoning be
approved. The building would be converted for use as a
banquet facility which is treated as a permitted use in the C-2
District. You will notice that one section of the building located
in the northwest corner would be demolished. That totals about
2,000 square feet leaving about 20,770 square feet overall. The
reason is to facilitate additional parking on the property. There
is a question of whether or not the 148 on-site parking spaces
would be sufficient in order to meet the use of the banquet
facility, especially when it is in full operation, but the petitioner
would have to address this concern, as well as any other
development related issues as part of the site plan review
process should the rezoning move forward. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Let's gel that in the record.
Mr. Taormina: There is one items of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated March 12, 2014, which reads as follows: 7n
accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has
April 1, 2014
26325
reviewed the above -referenced planning petition. We have no
objections to the proposal rezoning petition at this time. The
petition indicates that this is a change in zoning only and that no
alterations will be made to the existing site. This should not
affect any of the existing public utilities, and therefore will not
require any Engineering Division permits. Should the owner
wish to redevelop the property, they will need to contact this
department to determine if permits will be required. The
addresses of 27403 and 27451 Schoolcraft Road should be
used in connection with this petition. The legal description
provided with the petition does not close and should not be used
for the proposed petition. We recommend that the owner
contact the surveyor to provide an acceptable description, and
corresponding drawing, to be used. Until that time, we suggest
that the existing legal descriptions from City records be used to
indicate the subject parcels." The letter is signed by David W.
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer 11. We do have two additional items of
correspondence, Mr. Chairman. One is from the Petitioner in
the form of an email and the other one is from a party
representing the sellers' of the property. Unless you'd like me to
read those out, they are both here this evening and can explain
in greater detail what the letters contain.
Mr. Morrow:
Are they very long?
Mr. Taormina:
No, not too bad.
Mr. Morrow:
Let's gel those in the record.
Mr. Taormina:
I will do that. The first is from Signature Associates, received on
March 28, 2014, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your
request for a written summary of the items that 1 discussed at
last Tuesday's study meeting: Property Search - For the past
several years, 1 have assisted Mr. Seed in the search of a
building with sufficient land to support a banquet facility.
Typically, a banquet facility needs a minimum 5 -to -1
property -to -building ratio for on-site parking. This requirement
has been most elusive in the cities of Northville, Plymouth
Canton, Westland, and Dearborn especially on streets with
main road exposure. The former North American Photo
building (see attachment) located at the subject address is
roughly 22,000 sq. ft. building on 2.13 acres of land. This is
nearly a 4 -to -1 building -to -property ratio which is why Mr. Seed
decided to submit an Offer to Purchase contingent on the
proper zoning approval. Zoning - The current zoning on the
property is OS for the small corner parcel and M-1 for the
larger parcel. From the historical research provided by an
April 1, 2014
26326
environmental company, the comer lot was a gas station in the
1950's through 1970's. The larger lot had a main building
constructed as a Farmer Jack which still has the remnants of
the coolers left in it. Later, the building was setup as a multi -
tenant facility with two other tenants, a dry cleaners and hair
salon. Of course, the most recent use was as a photography
studio in which customers came for portrait photos. Future
Usage - As the current Real Estate Broker on this facility, most
of the inquiries on this property have been for retail or
commercial uses. Companies representing a furniture store,
pharmacy, day care center, strip mall, restaurantlbar, church,
etc., have inquired about the property so it is apparent that this
location is viewed as a commercial comer. If Mr. Saad decided
to sell this property in the future, 1 am certain he would have
no problem in marketing it as a commercial parcel." The letter
is signed by L. Jack Townsend, Signature Associates. The next
item is an email from Fadi Saad, dated March 27, 2014, which
reads as follows: 9 would first like to thank the Committee for
their time in discussing my proposed rezoning of 27403 and
27451 Schoolcmft Road. 1 would like to offer comments
regarding the intended use of the property. First, thepropertyto
be used as a banquet facility which will not be competing with
larger banquet facilities in the area. This banquet hall will have
its own niche in serving both the multicultural community and
the public from the neighboring cities as well as the City of
Livonia. The facility will offer and allow its clients to bring in
their own caterers to prepare specific menus according to their
cultural restrictions. The facility plans on not obtaining a liquor
license, therefore, no liquor will be allowed on the premises.
Second, all events will have a valet parking option and we are
currently in talks about a neighboring property to be used for
overflow parking if necessary. Finally, we will upgrade the
property by adding landscaping to give it an appealing curbside
look and give the building a more contemporary design. With
these comments in mind, we hope to come back and present a
newly revised detailed plan for this future banquet facility
project. Again, thank you for your time in considering the
rezoning of this property. Regards, Fadi Saad."
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions of the
Planning Director?
Mr. Bahr: I actually think that letter, assuming its correct, answered my
question, but I just wanted to clarify, this would come before us
again if we approved the zoning before they would move
forward with actually proceeding with this development?
April 1, 2014
26327
Mr. Taormina:
To the extent that they propose any building modifications, then
yes, they would have to come back for site plan review.
Mr. Bahr:
Thankyou. Thanks for that clanfcalion.
Mr. Morrow:
Anyone else? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need
your name and address for the record please.
Fadi Saad, 13840 W. Warren, Dearborn, Michigan 48126. Good evening. On
behalf ofthe petitioner, NPM Acquisitions, L.L.C.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. You've heard the presentation by Mr. Taormina. Is
there anything you'd like to add to it or anything of that nature?
Mr. Saad:
No. Everything was stated in the letters we sent out.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
There was a question about parking and you were discussing
possibly having an agreement so there would be more parking
in the area?
Mr. Saad:
Yes. We're in talks with a landlord which is one parcel over on
Inkster. It used to be Ross Towing. It's an auto storage place
now. They're using it for truck storage. Its 2.85 acres. They're
only using about an acre of it. So we're in talks possibly doing a
lease or maybe purchasing that properly for additional parking if
we require it.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to advise the audience that this is a zoning petition.
Its perfectly alright to introduce what you plan to do with the
property, but we want to confine ourselves mainly to zoning.
We're not here to develop the site plan or change the footprint
of the building or anything. That would come at a later dale.
We want to know what you want to do with it, but we can't
develop itto a greatdeal. Are there any otherquestions?
Mr. Wilshaw:
A question through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. As a
commercially zoned property, there are different parking
requirements based on the intended use of the property. Is that
correct?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
April 1, 2014
26328
Mr. Wilshaw:
Say a building of this size was used as a standard multi or
maybe even single tenant commercial use, say a drug store or
Mr. Wilshaw:
something along those lines, would the parking be adequate on
Thank you, sir.
this site for that type of use?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I think it would be more than adequate as it's shown on this
particular plan. It would have to park at about 117. What this
plan shows is 148. As a general retail use, parking is based on
one space for every 150 square feel of useable floor area. This
layout would conform with the City's parking standard. In fad,
there would be a surplus of parking.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Then as a banquet facility, is the parking requirement
different?
Mr. Taormina:
It is different. Its based on either the seating or building square
footage but much less than the 150. It was a situation that they
were shy of parking with all of the useable space of the banquet
facility here under this conceptual layout. So that's why there
was discussion about maybe using one room at a time, not both
together, which in that case, it would comply with the ordinance
but that would be a difficult thing to monitor and control.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. Thank you. Mr. Saad, as the Chairman said, we're not
going to talk much about the use of the property as much as the
zoning, but based on the proposed use that we see as a
banquet
facility, why are you choosing this particular site and
wanting
to rezone this site as opposed to perhaps any other site
in the City?
Mr. Saad:
Choosing this site, it's easy access off the highway and it's
neighboring cities, which is like 15 minutes to that properly,
Northville, Farmington Hills, Canton, Dearborn Heights,
Dearborn. It's in the center of all these cities. I've been looking
for the Iasi three years in Livonia and my real estate people
confirmed that I want a place in Livonia off the highway in that
area. Location is very important to us.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So you've been working with a real estate broker who has
looked ala number of sites and you feel that this site is the most
useable for you in the type of business venture that you're
looking to gel into?
Mr. Saad:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate it
April 1, 2014
26329
Mr. Bahr: Mr. Saad, first of all I compliment you and your broker for the
information you provided. I had a number of questions coming
here tonight, some of which I asked last week at the study
meeting, but your letter is very comprehensive and frankly
answered just about every one of them. One question I had for
you was, you stale in your letter, typically a banquet facility of
this type needs a minimum of 5-10-1 properly -lo -building ratio for
on-site parking. This one has a 4-10-1 property -lo -building ratio,
which isn't insignificant. How confident are you that this is going
to work for you?
Mr. Saad: Actually, Jack, my reallor, he's the one who wrote that letter.
He has more information.
Jack Townsend, Signature Associates, One Town Square, Southfield, Michigan.
The search for a facility like this is rather difficult because the
sites you're looking at developing to have sufficient patrons
requires quite a bit of parking. So you're looking at maybe a
shopping mall, which means you'd have to vacate all the
tenants, demolish the building, centrally locale the building, and
then gel proper ingress and egress. This actually has three
curb cuts, two coming off of Schoolcratt and one coming off of
Inkster. So it has very good egress and ingress. Very difficult
to find when you're looking at an industrial building which
typically are long and narrow, and are situated to max out a
properly, 2-10-1, 3 -to -1 building -lo -property ratio. So I listed this
building about a year and a half ago. I kept getting all of these
retail calls. I finally decided I should call and tell Fadi about it
because even though it's industrial, it would work very well for
the type of use that he had in mind. That's how it came to be.
Its a good sized building. It doesn't need to be modified too
much. There was a little bit of additional space from this
drawing on the west side of the building, two additions, and
those are coming down. So it actually reduces the footprint of
the building to help minimize or reduce the amount of parking
necessary on site. Hopefully, that answers your question.
Mr. Bahr: That all makes sense, but when you stated it was a 5-10-1 ratio,
its a 4 -to -1 ratio, you're apparently okay with that. I guess with
the negotiations you have with a neighbor that would ease some
of that.
Mr. Townsend: As a real estate broker, I work with a lot of developers, and
developers try to maximize the property that they develop. In
other words, the largest building that they can gel on a piece of
property. So we start talking ratios. In the old days in some of
the older neighborhoods you're going to find almost a 1-10-1
April 1, 2014
26330
ratio. You barely have enough room to get around these
buildings, and if you move out to Plymouth, you're in a campus
setting. You've got 3-10-1 property ratio to building. So I use
that as a benchmark for what we were looking for. It's not
something in stone and obviously it changes depending on the
zoning and the city requirements.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
If there's nothing further from the Commission, I'm going to go
to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against the granting of this petition?
Mr. Taylor:
If I may before the resolution, you know the City's fathers years
back in 1950 when the City was developed, decided the best
thing we can do was put the induslnal bell down through the
center of the city. That way, it wouldn't encumber some of the
neighbors and all of those kinds of problems that you do have
when induslnal backs up to residential. Right now, the City has
about 18 to 20 percent vacancy on C-2. Across the street is a
vacant building, the old Frank's Nursery. Why would we want to
put more C-2 in Livonia? Let's face it. We're not talking about
really a commercial development. We're talking about a hall,
and the hall is going to be short of parking. We already know
that. So then we end up going back to the Zoning Board of
Appeals so that they can take care of the parking. Parking is
always a big problem for halls. I know that we're talking about
zoning, but let's be truthful about it. He's looking to put a hall in,
and I just can't support this because it is C-2 and we have a lot
of vacant C-2 throughout the city.
Mr. Morrow:
There's still no one coming forward, and with that, I'm going to
close the public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-17-2014
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanng having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 1, 2014, Petition
2014-02-01-02 submitted by NPM Acquisitions L.L.C. pursuant
to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 27403 and
27451 SchoolcraR Road, located on the southwest comer of
SchoolcraR and Inkster Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
25, from OS (Office Services) and M-1 (Light Manufactunng) to
C-2 (General Business), the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-02-01-02 be
denied for the following reasons:
April 1, 2014
26331
1. That this area of the City is already well served with
commercial zoning, and the proposed rezoning is not
needed to serve the neighborhood or community;
2. That the anticipated commercial use would unduly tax and
conflict with the established and normal traffic flow of the
area;
3. That the existing zoning is more consistent with the
established pattern of development and character of the
adjacent properties; and
4. That G2 zoning is not supported by the Future Land Use
Plan which recommends industrial.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Any comments? If there are no comments, I'm going to pass
the gavel to my assistant here. I do want to make a comment.
After we had our study session last Tuesday, I went out to the
site, drove around it several times, drove the area several limes
and I had reached my conclusion and thought about it. I went
back to the site, did the same thing just to double check things
out, and I arrived at my decision. Mark, could you put the
zoning map up there please? I'm going to tell a little bit of a
story because some of you may not know what I'm about to say,
but not loo long ago, we had a very successful business in
Redford come to the city. It was Redford's Jewelry and Coin.
They deal in coins, jewelry and gold, silver. Long time
established business wanted to come to Livonia, build a site and
go into business, a business that anybody would be proud to
have in their city. There was only one problem. The site that
they had picked out would cause spot zoning. By that I mean
putting a zoning in for their building that was in conflict with the
zoning in the area. That was the decision I came to in my mind
when I left this site, that regardless of whether I want the
business in it or not, I was guided by what I feel is a spot zoning
site and that's a very primary thing when you're in this business
of seeing these things. You try not to spot zone because you
want to try to keep the zoning in keeping with what the
neighbors have. For that reason, I'm going to support Mr.
Taylor's motion. Thankyou.
April 1, 2014
26332
Mr. Wilshaw: Anything else, Mr. Chair? Are there any other comments from
the Commission?
Mr. Bahr: Just briefly, since I did hesitate a little bit there. I've been
conflicted over this since we first saw it. I feel the information
that's been provided has been excellent. I can certainly
understand why this is an attractive piece of property, but
frankly, as I've been deliberating even up here, Mr. Taylor and
Mr. Morrow have essentially voiced what my concerns were with
rezoning this property pretty much exactly. So if there's any
confusion as to maybe some of the nature of my questioning
earlier and why after some hesitation up here I decided to
support that, I wanted to explain that was why.
Ms. McIntyre: This is a difficult vote because as a business person and a
Livonia resident, I like to do everything possible to encourage
businesses to come to Livonia. We have a great community.
We offer everything that a business would want, but Mr.
Morow's history lesson, the Chairman's history lesson that he
shared tonight was, I think, very instructive and helpful. So I am
going to support the denying resolution as much as I hale to
discourage any business from coming to Livonia.
Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying
resolution. I will now pass the gavel back to the Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. This will go to the City Council who
will ultimately decide whether the zoning is approved or denied.
We are strictly making a recommendation to the City Council.
Thank you, Mr. Saad, for coming and you will be going to the
City Council.
ITEM #2 PETMON 2014-02-03-01 CLARENCEVILLE SCHOOLS
Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2014-02-03-01 submitted by Clarenceville School District,
pursuant to 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 the existing Beatrice Avenue right-of-way
located approximately 250 feel south of Norfolk Avenue,
adjacent to property owned by Clarenceville Schools including
Lots 16 and 17 (20221 and 20210 Beatrice Avenue) in the
Elmwood Farms Subdivision, located in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 2.
April 1, 2014
26333
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to vacate a portion of the unapproved Beatrice
Avenue that is located south of Norfolk. It is a portion of the
right-of-way that is requested to be vacated and then deeded to
the abutting properly owner, Clarenceville Schools. It lies about
250 feel south of Norfolk and then extends for a similar distance
south of that, about 250 feel. So if you look at the map you'll
see a highlighted red area. That is the portion of the right-of-
way in question that Clarenceville is asking to have vacated and
then be deeded to the School District. The improved portion of
Beatrice Avenue actually lies just north of this area. That is
about 250 feet in length and it provides access to five residential
parcels. South of the point where the road ends, the right-of-
way continues but that's the unimproved portion becoming part
of the District's ball diamonds. The aerial photograph shows
how the area in question actually lies somewhere out in left field
for one of the ball diamonds. The School District recently
surveyed the land where the High School and Grandville
Elementary are located. That survey revealed that the property
includes the unimproved portion of the right-of-way. The area
abuts Lots 16 and 17 of Elmwood Farms Subdivision. Actually,
Lots 16 and 17 are on either side of the right-of-way. Again,
both are owned by Clarenceville School District. The reason for
requesting the vacating is so that there is no unforeseen
development of the right-of-way. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can
read out the departmental correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Let's do that.
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of corespondence from the Engineering
Division, dated March 12, 2014, which reads as follows: "In
accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced planning petition. After a review
of the site and our files, there appear to be no public utilities
within the right-of-way to be vacated. Services forprivate utilities
(gas, electric, cable) appear to use Norfolk Avenue to service
the existing residences at the comers of Norfolk and Beatrice
Avenues, and as such, have no services running through the
proposed fight -of -way to be vacated. At this time the
Engineering Division has no issues with the proposed vacation
of the existing Beatrice Avenue right-of-way. The petitioner has
provided a survey and legal description for the proposed fight -
of -way to be vacated, which appear to be correct and can be
used in conjunction with the vacation request. We do ask that
the petitioner provide an existing legal description for the school
property, as well as a description for the property after the
April 1, 2014
26334
addition of the vacated right-0f--way." The letter is signed by
David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
So Mr. Taormina, there is no need for any sort of reservation of
the easements for utilities or anything of that nature?
Mr. Taormina:
Not any utilities that would be under the control of the City. If
there are any other utilities, those would be reviewed. I know
DTE has their own separate review of the request, and if @'s
determined that there are any facilities or need for easements,
then they will have to work out those details directly with the
School District.
Mr. Morrow:
But this is our way of letting DTE know that the City has no need
for that easement.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct, and DTE has been made aware of the petition.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Dave Bergeron,
Assistant Superintendent for Business, ClarenmWle School
District, 20210 Middlebell Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152.
Every year the Board goes through a process of determining
which capital projects or improvements theywantto make within
the School District, and this year we were looking at making
improvements at Grandville Elementary, the parking situation as
well as the athletic fields. We thought it would be prudent to do
a survey. When the survey came back, we were surprised that
there was a right-of-way running through our lett field of
baseball. That property has been around from 1950 - 1960.
I've been there about 18 years and I've never seen any
documentation to show a right-of-way. So before we make any
improvements to the fields, we're asking for that to be vacated.
Mr. Morrow:
We understand. Are there any questions?
Mr. Bahr:
I'm just wondering if they have a concern about weak right-
handed hitters or something that they need to shorten the
fences in right field, if that's the real reason for this.
Mr. Bergeron:
We're actually going to reconfigure that field and move the
baseball field to a different location because of that.
Mr. Bahr:
I'm all set.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition?
April 1, 2014
26335
Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public
heading and ask fora motion.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McIntyre, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#04-18-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 1, 2014, on
Petition 2014-02-03-01 submitted by Clarenceville School
District, pursuant to Council Resolution #86-14, 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
the existing Beatrice Avenue right-of-way located approximately
250 feet south of Norfolk Avenue, adjacent to properly owned
by Clarenceville Schools including Lots 16 and 17 (20221 and
20210 Beatrice Avenue) in the Elmwood Farms Subdivision,
located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2014-02-03-01 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the subject dight -of -way is not needed for public
access purposes;
2. That the subject right-of-way can be more advantageously
used in private ownership; and
3. That no reporting City department or public utility has
objected to the proposed vacating.
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 Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. That concludes the public hearing items.
We now move on to Miscellaneous Items, which is Agenda Item
#3.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2014-03-08-03 McLAREN
Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition
2014-03-08-03 submitted by McLaren Performance
Technologies/Linamar, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a three-story office -research and
April 1, 2014
26336
manufacturing facility and erect a parking structure on
properties at 32233 and 32367 Eight Mile Road, located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and
Hubbard Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request by McLaren Performance Technologies and
Linamar. The property is located on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Parker Avenue and Hubbard Road. The overall
site consists of five contiguous parcels. The main property is
identified as 32233 Eight Mile; that's the largest of all the
parcels. The site also contains three separate buildings. The
combined land area of all five parcels is 6.41 acres. It includes
roughly 600 feel of frontage on Eight Mile Road and a total
parcel depth of 600 feel. Going back to the zoning map, the
property is split-zoned. The north 300 feel is zoned M-L,
Manufactunng Limited, while the south 300 feel is zoned a
combination of both P, Parking, and R-3, One Family
Residential. The Parking District extends roughly 115 feel south
of the Manufacturing zoning line. In terms of adjacent zoning
and land uses, abutting the property to the south are single
family homes. To the north across Eight Mile are various
commercial and industrial uses located in the City of
Farmington. To the east and west across the side streets are a
combination of both industrial and residential uses. McLaren
Performance Technologies, on behalf of its parent company
Linamar, is requesting site plan approval to expand its
engineering, testing and sales office and part of its
manufactunng facilities. The project involves demolishing one
of the existing industrial buildings, and in its place construct a
new three-story building addition. Also included as part of the
redevelopment is the construction of a new parking deck
needed to accommodate additional employees. Now what I'd
like to do is go over what exists today. The overall building area
of the combined existing three buildings is roughly 74,740
square feel. When completed, the total gross floor area of all
the buildings would increase, and this includes all levels, to
about 132,000 square feet. That is a net increase of roughly
58,000 square feet or roughly 78 percent. Building #1, which is
32233 Eight Mile, is located near the middle of property. That is
the site of the largest of all three buildings and that's about
38,000 square feet. Building #2, which is 32205 Eight Mile, is
located near the northeast corner of the site near Eight Mile and
Parker. That building measures roughly 20,000 square feet in
size. Building #3, which is 32367 Eight Mile, is at the northwest
corner near Eight Mile and Hubbard and that building totals
roughly 16,346 square feet. It is Building #3, sometimes
referred to as the Cushman Building, that would be demolished
April 1, 2014
26337
in order to facilitate the expansion of Building #1. This is the
firstfloor of the building. It would be roughly 37,333 square feet
in total size. On the right hand side of this slide, is existing
Building #1. This is the building in its current dimensions which
would not be altered other than incorporating it into the
expanded space, which is located on the left hand side of the
drawing. So everything you see on the left hand side is the
building addition. Right now, the existing Building #3 sits
generally in this location. It is separate from Building #1 and
you can see the outline of the parking that exists between the
two buildings. Building #3 would be demolished. The addition
would encompass not only the area presently occupied by
Building #3, but also the parking that exists there. The addition
would conned to Building #1. This would be a three-story
addition to the facility. The first level floor plan shows that
roughly one-fourth of the floor space would be devoted to office
located near the front of the addition, and the remaining three-
quarters would be devoted to manufacturing. So this area on
the bottom portion of the slide in the area where the addition
would go is the manufacturing component, whereas this area up
front closest to Eight Mile would be used strictly for office
purposes. Next we move to the second floor plan. What you
see is a little bit larger expanded area of office up on the second
floor of the addition. Then looking down below, this is shop
area. You have an extended ceiling height for the shop area
down below which takes up some of the floor space of what
would otherwise be a useable area of the second floor. The
area to the right is the roof plan for existing Building #1.
Remember we're on the second floor now so there is no floor
space on Building #1. This is the third floor plan and what you'll
see is just basically the front half being used strictly for office.
Again, you have roof area to the right where existing Building #1
is located, and now you have roof area below because this area
steps down. This would be the roof portion of the
manufacturing. So this area on the top part of the slide, on the
left hand side, is the tallest part of the structure. The next slide
I'm going to show you is actually a visual aid or rendering of
what that would look like. This shows all three levels of the
building looking at it from the corner of Hubbard and Eight Mile
Road. In terns of parking, what is required is equal to one
space for every one employee. Curently, Building #1 is
estimated to have 70 employees and Building #2 has 30
employees for a total of 100. Itis forecasted that the expansion
will bring 100 additional employees to the site for a total of 200.
To accommodate the increase, a new parking deck would be
built behind Building #1 in the area presently zoned P, Parking.
The deck shows one ground level and two upper levels and
April 1, 2014
26338
would have a total capacity of 152 spaces. The zoning line runs
coterminous with the rear part of this structure. So extending for
a distance of roughly 115 feel from this point, which is where the
manufacturing line is located, to this point and extending across
the full width of this parcel is the area that is zoned P, Parking.
The parking deck is located wholly within that Parking district.
By adding 152 spaces to 78 existing and proposed off-street
surface spaces that would be located in the front of and
between Buildings #1 and #3, it would provide a total of total
230 spaces, sufficient to accommodate the increase in
employees and visitors. When we look at the total parking,
again, this would accommodate 152 spaces, then you have
additional parking located here, and it presently exists between
Buildings #1 and #2, and then you have the parking up front
along Eight Mile, which would be in some cases reconfigured
and extended. The dimensions of the parking structure are
roughly 163 feel in length by 60 feet. It would be constructed
mostly of steel and concrete. It would be unenclosed and would
not contain a roof. It would contain galvanized steel guardrails
on the north and sides, and the east and west ends show a
decorelive finish. That decorative finish and screening in the
form of louvers or some type of mesh material that would now
be extended across the south side of the structure to help shield
headlights. The stairwell to the structure is shown in the
southeast comer. There is an overhead walkway that connects
the third level of the deck with the second level of the building.
The finish elevation of the upper deck is roughly 18.5 feet
whereas the roof level of the staircase is measured at a
maximum height of 25.6 feet. In terms of access and deliveries,
this would remain unchanged. There are two existing driveways
off 8 Mile and one off Hubbard. The driveways along Eight Mile
will not be altered whereas the driveway from Hubbard will be
improved with new asphalt and portions of existing concrete will
be removed and replaced with landscaping. Delivery trucks
would continue to enter off Hubbard. This driveway would
function as two-way for cars, but mostly one -directional for
trucks. What's happening here is curently where the Cushman
Building is located, there is an area where trucks are able to
offload their materials or pickup materials in a well that's
provided directly behind that Cushman Building. That offload
area would be shifted to the east a couple of hundred feet and
be located directly at the rear of Building #1. So trucks using the
shipping and received area would come in off of Hubbard Road
as they curenlly do, extend to the east, they would back up to
this lruckwell or dock, and then they would exit out to Eight Mile
Road again in a counter -clockwise direction. In terms of
landscaping, the rear part of property that is zoned R-3 will
April 1, 2014
26339
remain as open space and is currently used for storm water
detention. The improvements to the Parking District will require
the fulfillment of a landscape plan that was approved in 2010.
This is a copy of that plan. It shows 34 blue spruce trees that
would be planted in a staggered arrangement on lop of two
berms, one that extends along the fence line adjacent to the
residences on west side, and the other directly behind the
residences closest to Building #2 on the east side of the
property. I'm going to run through some slides showing the
renderings of the proposed building. The architecture conveys
a modern engineering look. Its consistent with the appearance
of other Linamar buildings. The primary exterior building
materials include silver or grey -colored aluminum composite
panels and glazing or glass. These same facade treatments will
extend across the full length of the building, including the
existing portions of Buildings #1 and #2. Again, this is the
addition as viewed from the northwest corner of the property.
This would be a view of existing Building #1 from Eight Mile
Road. On the right hand side you can see the addition. That is
noted primarily because of the additional height. This would be
a view roughly from across the street in the northwest comer
looking at what the addition would appear as. This is actually
an illustration of what the front of Building #2 would look like
next to the one-story portion of Building #1. What this conveys
is the fact that they are going to continue that treatment along
the entire frontage of Eight Mile to include the existing buildings.
This is a rendering of what the building would appear like from
across the street on Hubbard. This is an illustration of the
parking deck as viewed from the rear of Building #1 looking at it
basically from a southwest direction. What you see on the right
hand portion would be the walkway that extends between the
third level of the parking deck and the second floor of the
proposed addition. Lastly, this is a new view provided today
showing what the structure would look from the back side as
viewed possibly from the back portion of the property that
Linamar owns. With that, Mr. Chainnan, I can read out the
departmental correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 25, 2014, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced planning petition.
We have no objections to the proposal petition at this time. The
address of 32233 Eight Mile Road is correct for the main parcel,
and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The legal
April 1, 2014
26340
descriptions provided with the petition are acceptable to this
office. However, we would suggest that the owner consider
combining the existing parcels and providing one revised
description for the entire property, instead of having numerous
separate parcels. The property is currently serviced by public
water main and sanitary sewer. The submitted plans do not
indicate any changes to the existing leads, so we do not foresee
any impacts to the existing systems. Any changes to the service
leads will need to be submitted to the Engineering Division for
review, and possible permitting. In previous discussions with the
owner we have indicated the requirements for storm water
treatment on the proposed site. The submitted plans do not
provide details or calculations for the proposed development, so
we cannot comment on that aspect at this time. We will review
the proposed storm water treatments during the permitting
phase, once we have received a full Engineering plan submittal.
We would like to suggest that the owner submit complete a
traffic study, with expected daily treffn counts and tum
movements, to determine whether or not signalization will be
wananted in connection with the proposed site improvements."
The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated Maroh 24, 2014, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct a three-story office -research and manufacturing facility
and erect a parking structure on property located at the above
referenced addresses. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be
provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet
between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM
with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) This division requests
that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane —
No Parking.' (3) Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of
thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to
wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches.
(4) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed
width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a
minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. These and
other code requirements will be addressed during the plan
review process." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
Maroh 20, 2014, 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 Joseph Boilos, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated April 1, 2014, which reads as follows:
April 1, 2014
26341
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for the excess
building height. A height of 51 feet is proposed where a
maximum of 35 feet is allowed. (2) The setback along the west
side of the property is proposed to be 26.96 feet where a
minimum of 30 feet setback is required. A variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the
deficient setback. 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:
Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Ms. McIntyre:
Is the proposed walkway between the proposed parking deck
and building enclosed orjusl open?
Mr. Taormina:
It would appear to be open -sided but I'll lel the company
representative answer that question if I'm mistaken. It does
have a roof. I don't see any windows, but that's not to say there
wouldn't be any.
Ms. McIntyre:
Thank you. I saw the roof but I didn't know if the sides were
enclosed.
Mr. Morrow:
Good point. Is there anything else? If there are no other
questions, we will go to the petitioner or his representative. We
will need your name and address for the record please.
Scott Maxwell,
General Manager, McLaren Engines, 32233 W. Eight Mile Road,
Livonia, Michigan 48152.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Maxwell, you've heard the presentation by Mr. Taormina. Is
there anything you'd like to add to it?
Mr. Maxwell:
Yes. First of all, just to introduce two of my colleagues who are
also here tonight and who are also available to answer
questions: Gary Crone is the Site Manager and Mike Gilles who
is representing the architectural company.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell:
Again, thank you for allowing us to be here and propose our site
plan. Just a little bit of history on the building. As was
mentioned before, there's about 100 people on the site today.
There's also another 100 people located in an office building in
Southfield. Those are mainly sales and engineering people.
April 1, 2014
26342
Over the last 10 years since it was purchased by Linamar in
2003, there have been multiple attempts to find a place to house
the engineering people along with the people onsite at Eight
Mile. Our purpose at Eight Mile is hardware development and
gear boxes. A lot of the engineers that are intimately lied to
what we do here have to reside in the Southfield building due to
size constraints of what we have on the property. We've looked
at various places in Novi, Northville, Canton. Many of them
tended to be on the western end on the other side of 275 mainly
because of the amount of size that we needed, to move all the
infrastructure that we currently have at Eight Mile and house all
the office people. Unfortunately, a lot of the buildings you'll find
will have adequate space for the manufacturing side but very
little in the way of office space. Additionally, we'd have to move
all of the testing infrastructure as well as the permitting from the
DEQ that goes along with that to the new building. So we've
also looked inwardly at the site in small chucks. Part of the
reasoning we had the zoning change for the parking in that
oullol in the back was to accommodate additional surface
parking if we were able to bring some of the engineering folks
down from Southfield. Unfortunately, with the configurations of
the buildings and the high level of business activity that we
have, we just weren't able to find a space for all of the
engineers. We couldn't find a way to do a part of them, and all
of them means about 90 people. So we decided to kind of leave
things where they were. I think the main goal was to be able to,
at some point, bring everybody together. Our parent company
decided eady in 2013 to take a look at, one more time, can we
find a way to take the site and bring it everything we need to
accommodate all the parking, bring everything over from
Southfield and consolidate to one building. We approached the
City sometime around mid -year. Everything was very open.
Everybody has been very cooperative. We asked, how can we
put together a plan to stay? What kinds of things would we
need to do and that process has brought us here tonight. The
reason we'd liked to stay in Livonia is it's a great location. All of
the access to the freeways to our customers is ideal. A lot of
places that were somewhat possible tended to be on the west
side of town. It left a lot of the people that live in Macomb and
Rochester who work in Southfield with a very long and difficult
drive facing them with the realization that they either have to
move or find employment elsewhere, and we really didn't want
to do that. We'd also have to move all of our lest equipment,
which is fairly substantial expense -wise and logistics -wise and
then get DEQ permitting again for the engine lest cells, which is
also a long and difficult process. So we decided in the end, we
came up with this plan and decided it would be easier just to
April 1, 2014
26343
move the office people from Southfield and put all 200 people in
one location. With all those things considered, thats why we
decided to do what we did. Again, we're here to answer
questions, and I thank you for the time.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you for that background. Are there any questions from
the Commissioners?
Mr. Taylor:
What will be the cost of this project?
Mr. Maxwell:
Its lens of millions. Its over $10 million.
Mr. Taylor:
So you're personal properly tax obviously would be going up
also?
Mr. Maxwell:
Yes, it would. And real, because we will be investing in putting
in additional equipment and other things in there, so the real
properly would increase as well.
Mr. Taylor:
Didn't I read in the paper where the State gave you some
economic help too?
Mr. Maxwell:
Yes. It's what they call Mega Credits. I don't know all the
details because some of our corporate people look care of that
but we have some existing ones. If you recall, what we call
Building #2 was originally two separate buildings, and about
2007 or 2008, that was enclosed and combined into one, and
some of the Mega Credits were offered at that point and time
with the additional jobs the Slate has offered additional Mega
Credit incentives to do that as well. I dont know what the total
count was, but it was as much or more than what the original
Mega Credits were in the first place.
Mr. Taylor:
Total employees would be around 400?
Mr. Maxwell:
Right now, when we move, it would be about 200. We Teff room
because with our expansion rale, we're going to be somewhere
in the neighborhood of 230 to 250 people by 2018, 2019.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Ms. Smiley:
So you're mostly increasing your engineering and office staff. Is
that what you're saying?
Mr. Maxwell:
We're moving them over but the new part, what was Building #3
or the Cushman Building, does have somewhere between
20,000 to 25,000 feel of additional open space where we would
Ms. Smiley: So less than 100 would be here in the evening?
April 1, 2014
26344
bring assembly work and maybe additional testing or
development work in that area. So we'll mainly be bringing over
engineers, but in the end, as we fill that up, we'll be hiring skilled
technicians for that area as well as some trades.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. My question is about parking. You're probably not
building the structure, but I can only imagine that building a
structure is much more expensive than laying down a sea of
asphalt. Is that correct?
Mr. Maxwell:
Yes, itwould be.
Ms. Smiley:
I personally am a fan of that. I've been to Ann Arbor. They do it
much better because they don't have any parking at all over
there, but I know I prefer up to out. Right now where I live,
behind me there are some offices and commercial things. I
would prefer to see a parking structure to all that cement,
because they took down so many trees and sluff to put all that
cement in.
Mr. Maxwell:
Yes. We would as well, plus there's some limits. There's a
retention pond back there. Mike can probably elaborate on that
a little bit more, the technical reasons. But there was some
drainage concems and our ability to feed the storm runoffs into
the Eight Mile drain, so they elected to bang some of that back
into that pond. Part of that then, in addition to adding the
parking was, it had been kind of an overgrown weed field and
left there because it was unused. We have someone come in
every week, cut it, maintain it, keep the weeds out, keep the
overgrowth down, so it actually looks visually appealing right
now. If we were to pave it all over, that would all be gone and
even with the parking structure, our plants completely maintain
that and hopefully to add and improve the look of that back
there yet.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you very much. What kind of hours of operation do you
have? How many employees would you have?
Mr. Maxwell:
The vast majority is 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. depending on whether you're hourly or office. There is a
nightshift in Building #2 that runs both second and third shift.
That's probably the main place where that will lake place.
There may be some activity in the newer building in the off -
shifts, but the vast majorityof twill be dayfime activity.
Ms. Smiley: So less than 100 would be here in the evening?
April 1, 2014
26345
Mr. Maxwell: Probably 50 at most, just off the lop of my head. Its not half.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: I have a number of questions regarding the parking in the back
of the facility. One of the renderings that we saw showing the
back of the facility, the most recent one there, made it appear as
though it's pretty devoid of landscaping between the back and
the parking deck itself. Is that actually what's going to be
proposed or are we going to have berming with trees on it and
that type of landscaping in the back of the property?
Mr. Maxwell: There is already some berming on it from the original effort to do
the small amount of surface parking in that oullot area. The
east side has quite a bit of trees that come in and head to the
southwest and cover a lot of that corner. The only open side is
the west side. There is no plan to remove any trees or shrubs.
If anything, we would add to the greenspace to do that. So
there is no intent or plan or desire to take any of the green out of
that back area.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Have you considered planting pine trees or evergreen -
type trees that would help shield the parking deck in the back of
the properly?
Mr. Maxwell: We're open to doing any number of things. There was some of
that in the original plan for that flat level parking on the berms.
We never did the parking space and asphalting, we never did
the trees. We probably should have unfortunately, but those
things can be brought up. I think part of the agreement is that if
we do the garage, the sluff that was in the original rezoning for
parking, we would complete that, and if there's anything else
that needed to be done, we could certainly lake a look at it.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. What sort of lighting will be in and on the parking deck?
Mr. Maxwell: Mike's got that one.
Mike Gilles, Tacoma Engineers, 176 Speedvale Avenue W., Guelph, Ontario,
Canada N1H 1C3 Canada, Our firm has been retained by the
parent corporation, Linamar, to work on the design of this, to
work with the local architects and the local engineers and
consultants forthe design.
Mr. Wilshaw: So lighting in or on the deck?
April 1, 2014
26346
Mr. Gilles: We've done a preliminary lighting plan, a photometric plan.
There it is. You can't see the small numbers but it gives you the
lighting levels at various points on the parking deck and the
surrounding areas. The plan is to incorporafion 15 fool high
poles with LED lighting. LED lighting is a modem fixture. What
it allows you to do is to be very directional with the light. The
light is all pointed downwards, and it is pointed in a direction
facing the parking deck which eliminates the spillover beyond
the fixtures to the rear and sides of the fixture. There are eight
fixtures allocated for the lop deck.
Mr. Wilshaw:
As I stand at the ground level of anywhere in that general
vicinity and I look up at a parking structure that is three stories in
height, which is more like two stories of a commercial building,
and then there's a 15 fool pole on lop of that with a light fixture,
even though the lighting may be directional to shine on the
parking deck, the fixture itself, the underside of it becomes
visible to me at that height. Is there any thought of possibly
using some sort of a wall pack or some sort of a lower mounted
light fixture that would shine light into the parking area so that
people can see where they're walking and have good visibility,
but not shine anywhere else or be visible from other angles?
Mr. Gillis:
I'm not an electncal engineer, but I know just from experience
that if you have fixtures at a lower level like that, you'll have one
of two things. You'll either have insufficient lighting in the
middle of the parking deck or the light will have to be horizontal.
When light is horizontal, it shoots well beyond the extent of the
parking structure whereas a pole mount shoots the light
downward.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. One thing to possibly consider would be an even lower
mounted pole, say a 10 to 12 fool pole as opposed to a 15 fool
pole.
Mr. Gillis:
Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. What sort of secunty is going to be provided in the deck?
Obviously things with ramps and so on can be attractive
nuances to teenagers.
Mr. Gillis:
We haven't gone into the details of secunty. That will be
something as we go through the design we'll work out. These
structures typically can incorporate sophisticated or very simple
security. It could be general properly security with fencing and
gates. We haven't gone into the details of security, but it can
easily be addressed.
April 1, 2014
26347
Mr. Wilshaw: Is that something that you would be willing to address?
Mr. Gillis: Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw: There's a parking deck at a Comerica facility at Six Mile and
Haggerty for the folks that live around here that know that area,
and that parking deck is secured with some sort of gate system
that comes down after hours or in the evenings, weekends, and
so on, to prevent people from going in there and messing
around. That's something that might be worth considering for
you as well. Just as a curiosity, the manufacturing area of the
new building, the rear portion that has the high ceilings, what is
the intended use of that area at least initially?
Mr. Maxwell:
Mainly just assembly work and maybe some light machining.
Its not anything that would make a lot of noise. There won't be
any forge presses or anything that's thunderous or annoying like
that. There wont be any engine lest cells going in there. There
won't be any exhaust like we do have in the original Building #1.
There are exhausts in the northeast comer and when the
engines are running the cell, they do make some noise despite
muffiers on the roof. They do make some noise. So we won't
have any of that. Its intended to be enclosed, conditioned air,
not necessarily air conditioning, so that we can operate during
the summer and winter comfortable. Some of the stuff we do
tends to be somewhat complicated in terms of temperature
controls so we can't just leave it open to 90 degree air during
the summer. Generally speaking, the doors will be closed so
you're not going to have open doors, open bays where you can
hear hammering, banging or any kind of noise. It's prefty much
light assembly and some very minor machining -type work,
nothing incredibly noisy or dirty.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So is it safe to categorize the bulk of this expansion as really to
add additional office staff, which currently is off-site, to the
location and not a significant expansion of the manufacturing or
production, the actual machining or any of the mechanical
things that occur in your operation?
Mr. Maxwell:
I guess I'm not sure I understand.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Is it a safe way to categorize it? The bulk of the expansion is
really office workers as opposed to manufacturing?
Mr. Maxwell:
The major intent is to be able to bring the office people in
because of how we configured it and some of the future
April 1, 2014
26348
business that we would like to bring into the Detroit area. We
generally lend to work on things early on in the life of a program
- for a vehicle or whatever it happens to be. We do work on
hybrids. We have a demonstrator vehicle. When you're
working that far out, those programs lend to come in al fairly low
volumes and don't require a lot of the high volume expensive
equipment that we typically do in a program in some of the
plants around the globe. So this would be more of a place to
have space to do incubator -type work. If we are successful in
the hybrid vehicle, its a molonzed axle with gearboxes and it's
the perfect kind of thing to assemble a few thousand of those in
our building. It wont necessarily be a big assembly line, but it
may be an area of some technicians and benches running in a
pattern and trying to put these things together over a dayshiff
type operation. That's an added bonus to gel. It's helpful to
have the income to do that, but generally it's to bring all the
people together in a team -based environment.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Now, I did see on the plan the mention of part of the roof
element being a green roof.
Mr. Maxwell:
There is a section between the west wall of Building #1, the
center building, and the new area, I believe it will go upwards. It
will be at an angle from where the north/south line of the
building intersects. It will go upward so that where those x's
are, that dark area, if you're going to the right, that's going to go
up and that will provide some visual banners for the roof. Items
in Building #1 for the people in the office, give them some green
space to look. It will also help with water runoff and it will also
shield the view from the unsightly parts of the building of the
roof of Building #1.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So this is similar to what Ford Motor Company did at the Rouge
Plan where they added green?
Mr. Maxwell:
I've seen it. I know how that works. It's not that large of a scale
but it's the same general idea to have something green on the
roof.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. Okay. I do have some additional questions but I'll wait
until later.
Ms. McIntyre:
Do you currently run a three shift operation now?
Mr. Maxwell
In parts of the building, yes, mainly in Building #2, the westerly
building. The activity level on future programs right now is
extremely high. The two test cells that are in there that were part
April 1, 2014
26349
of that expansion back in 2007, they run 2417. We are at
capacity on those. We are actually outsourcing some of that
testing fight now, unfortunately.
Ms. McIntyre:
Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
Just a point of clanfcafion, Building #2 is the easterly building.
Mr. Maxwell:
Did I saywestedy?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Maxwell:
Sony.
Mr. Morrow:
We know what you meant.
Ms. McIntyre:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bahr:
Just one remaining question. Truck traffic with this. Do you
anticipate it being pretty much the same level as it is right now
or do you think there will be a stark increase in it with this
move?
Mr. Maxwell
We wouldn't expect so. All the activity right now that requires
trucks remains the same. Bringing office people in, we still have
UPS and FedEx come in. They're still going to come in. They
just may have a bigger load on a cart for us, but that's about R.
One to four trucks a day. So we don't anticipate any increase in
that.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. Thank you. For now, I'll just say I think it's a beautiful
development. I think you guys have put a ton of thought into
how to do this well in an attractive way and with a lot of
consideration for the surrounding area as well. So I applaud
you in that. Before I go back, just a question for Mark. As we
move on, can you put up the new rendering of the view from
Hubbard? There was a view that we didn't see last week. Ijust
want to look at it as we go on. I'm all done.
Mr. Taylor:
With the truck traffic, I notice on Parker there is a "no truck"
sign. I'm not sure there's one on Hubbard or not. When I was
over there today, I didn't notice.
Mr. Maxwell:
They do enter from Hubbard now. They come down Hubbard,
come across behind the existing Cushman Building, go past the
dock, back into it, unload, and they exit between Buildings #1
and #2 back onto Eight Mile. It's a U -shape pattern.
April 1, 2014
26350
Mr. Taylor:
Trucks do come down Hubbard?
Mr. Maxwell:
Yes. Today, they come down Hubbard. They come around
behind the building and that traffic pattern that we have today
will be same. We won't change that.
Mr. Taylor:
When they go out, they don't go out Hubbard?
Mr. Maxwell:
No, they go out between Building #2 and Building #1 exiting to
Eight Mile.
Mr. Taylor:
Because if this were to pass, I think we have a resolution that
said there would be "no left turn' for trucks onto Hubbard out of
your facility.
Mr. Maxwell:
Okay.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Maxwell:
If I may just, I was going to answer the question about the
walkway. That is enclosed.
Ms. McIntyre:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bahr:
Just briefly, Mark, wasn't there another one from a similar angle
or was this the only one? I thought there was one from further
down Hubbard. That's what I was thinking of. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Are you all set?
Mr. Bahr:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Maxwell, because your parent company is in Canada, was
there ever any thought of perhaps taking it to Canada, your new
location?
Mr. Maxwell:
It had been looked at. We will do that. We have a significant
amount of excess properly at the facility in Windsor, over in
Essex Parkway. We did take a look at it but all in all, with the
moves and having to move people and such and getting people
across the border, that was less than ideal, but it was an option.
Mr. Morrow:
But it was looked al?
Mr. Maxwell:
Yes.
April 1, 2014
26351
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there anything else? Then is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of
this petition? I want to just take a minute. I understand that
there was kind of an informal meeting here last night where
some of the neighbors got a heads up on what was coming
down the pike. I think it was spear headed by the Mayor. That
was a courtesy because by our rules, it is not necessary to
invite the neighborhood to a site plan. What they did Iasi night
was just to make sure you realize that we weren't trying to work
around you. Again, as far as our role, as most of you probably
know, but I'm just going to refresh your memory, the Planning
Commission is like the citizen resident involvement. We're not
collected by the political machinery. We are an advisory board.
We get a chance to look at it before it goes to City Council, and
I'm speaking specifically of site plans now. One of our roles is
to make sure that the plans meet the ordinances. If there's a
slight variation outside the ordinance, then we discover that and
indicate that it would have to be approved by the Council and/or
the Zoning Board of Appeals or both. So whether or not we see
a plan, it is our role to send forward to the City Council the best
possible plan we can do, whether we unanimously agree with it
or we unanimously disagree with it. But the plans we send
forward to the City Council, to the best of our ability, is what we
think the City of Livonia would like to see and we meet the
ordinances. So understand as we go forward with this, I see
there are a number of people that probably want to discuss this.
We will now tum it over, and sir, you will be the first up. If there
is anyone else, just in the interests of time, could you queue up
at either microphone as the lines begins to diminish, you can
come forward. Just so the next person is ready to go when the
one person finishes. With that now, sir, we'll need your name
and address for the record and your input.
Steven Hatchigian, 20420 Parker, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 live across from
McLaren Technologies. I'm glad that McLaren is doing well. It's
good for the economy, its good for them, and I know its great
for the City. I have a feeling that the space is not big enough for
them. I think theyre going to outgrow their space right now, and
the reason why I say that is, they want to erect a three level
parking structure in our backyard. That tells me it's too small for
them. If that's the case, I would like to see them stay in Livonia,
but maybe perhaps find another spot. Do you all come to the
site and look at what they plan on doing? I mean, sifting on my
porch and looking out, right now I have a view of Building #2, a
full view, a little bit of #1. They lore the house down across the
street from me. Now that leaves it open. I'll have a full view of
the catwalk and the whole parking structure. I don't know about
April 1, 2014
26352
you guys, but would you like to look at that or my neighbors?
Its in their backyard. I heard Mayor Kirksey's answer
yesterday. We seemed to agree on a few things. One other
thing, I drove around Livonia today. I couldn't find a structure.
Can you give me a list where there's mulfi-level structures that's
in close proximity to the neighborhood? I know someone
mentioned Six Mile and Haggerty, but something that is like not
in the backyards like we're going to have now, but something
close because I would like to park and see the houses and then
see three story parking. It sounds like they're doing well, which
is great, but in three years, they're going to come back and say
we need another level for parking. We need another two stories
on Building #2. You know.
Mr. Morrow: I'm not aware of any. There's another parking structure, but
that's at Laurel Park.
Mr. Hatchigian: I have a vacant lot in front of me, and I know that's a nice spot
for parking. They already have a parking lot on the side of me,
which I can tell you a whole bunch of horror stories about that,
but to have it in front of me would be horrible. So, I mean, the
addition, a new building, as far as I'm concemed, I'm okay. I'm
not on Hubbard, I'm on Parker, but the three level parking
structure in the middle of everybody's back yard. I was
surprised yesterday to hear it. I'm still surprised. If I was a
betting man, and someone were to tell me Livonia will let
someone build a three level parking structure in the middle of
the backyards, I would say no, they wouldn't do that. That's all I
havelosay. Thankyou.
Michael Horton, 20414 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 guess I just wanted
you folks to know that back in 2010, McLaren Engines kind of
put a proposal together for the city to have that residential lot
behind them, a portion of it, rezoned to parking. So the
residents got together and we said, no, we don't want you to do
that. That's residential. We know you own it, but it was
residential when you bought it and we don't want a bunch of
cars parked backed there. So, we kind of took it to City Council
and there was something called a formal protest that we filed.
After I was done, McLaren contacted us, the property owners,
and said hey, we'd like you to come over and we'd like to show
you what we want to do. So we went to their facility and they
put out the plans. Mr. Taormina's got a copy of them from 2010
because he had them Iasi night. They showed us a parking lot,
a level parking lot. And to member Smiley's comment about
parking garages, I appreciate what you said, but the reason
they're building a parking garage, or want to, is because they
April 1, 2014
26353
don't have the space to put a flat parking lot, otherwise that's
what they would do because that's what they wanted to do
initially. They brought us over to their facility. They showed us
what they wanted to do. So trying to be good neighbors, we
decided to compromise and withdraw that formal protest based
on the idea that they would follow the plans that they submitted
in 2010, which called for a flat parking lot, x amount of spaces,
green space behind it, retention pond that included trees. The
drawing is on file. So they put in the retention pond and that
was R. They never put in any of the trees and they never put in
the parking lot. Four years later they come back with this
monstrosity of a parking garage and addition. Now, I appreciate
what you're saying as to needing to keep businesses in the city,
but they are clearly trying to shove a square peg in a round
whole. They've outgrown that whole area and they will just
continue to do this. Just so you get some reference, if that
parking garage goes up, my back porch will be closer than you
are to the back wall of this audilonum, and that's what I'll have
in my face every day. So, that speaks to properly values, my
view from my home and it speaks to the fad that they either
grossly misled us or just flat out lied to us because they never
did what they said they were going to do, and we would have
never agreed to drop that formal protest had we known this was
the plan they were going for. I guess that's all I have to say.
Thanks.
Kathryn Bottaro, 20495 Hubbard Street, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Mark, would
you please do me a favor and show the members where my
properly is on one of those slides, 20495 Hubbard, and thanks
for letting me participate in the meeting yesterday by phone. I
was with you all the way to the end. That's my properly. It's
blue but it is residential. My husband's the homeowner for the
last 10 years. I occupied it for the last one year. For a point of
reference, this is very important to me. My baby was bom three
months early. He's only been out of the NICU for the last seven
weeks, which means he has extreme premature lungs. This is
the first time he's out of the house except to go to the doctor.
This is a very important meeting to me. So our property is in a
position where we face on Hubbard Street, the entranceway and
so what we're faced with, not the parking structure, but rather
the building. If that 16,000 square foot building gets demolished,
I have to gel out. My property, whether I open my windows or
not, is going to be affected by all that dust. If there's
construction and a new building is put up, I dont know whether
or not my baby's premie lungs can tolerate that kind of dust
that's going to get kicked up. So we will then also face the
traffic. The way the parking is right now between the two
April 1, 2014
26354
buildings, those hundred or so employees currently park there.
They don't park so much on Hubbard. I'm not bothered by the
four trucks or so that come through. I'm not so much bothered
by the current lighting situation. What I'm going to be bothered
with is if those trucks have to come through and come out and
come out the other side. If all 200 or 250 employees have to
park in that structure, those people are going to come on
Hubbard and those people are going to exit out on Hubbard.
There is nothing slopping them from doing it. They have the
choice at this point. There is the exit way. They can go through
the two buildings but are they really going to when there's a
traffic jam because the trucks are in the way or the other
vehicles are in the way? If they are on Eight Mile and there's a
queue in the lett turn lane, are they really going to wail? Are
they going to go to Hubbard? I think they're going to go to
Hubbard. My properly, my living room window and Oak's
bedroom window face that parking lot. Our property is
residential. It's a house. It's existed there since I think '39. So
R is industrial zoned right now. Anyway, the point is, our house
faces their parking lot. In the future, it's going to be both a
building, a walkway and a parking lot. I don't know how much
lighting is going to be there especially if it becomes an office
building where the lights have to be kept on. I don't want all that
excess lighting into my front living room and Oak's bedroom. I
don't want the extra cars. I'm extremely concerned about the
excess traffic that's going to come through there. If those
headlights come out day in and day out and people with their
car alarms at 7:00 a.m., 9:30 p.m. whatever it takes, noise
pollution. We are extremely close to that Cushman Building.
We are on Hubbard. That's the building that's intended to come
down. So, I don't want to see this project. If I was given an
opinion, and that's why I'm here, if I had a choice to voice,
absolutely not. I can't see that this is any way benefiting the
local community. I just dont. I think there are so many options
rather than coming into this neighborhood. Probably my time is
just about up. I just am concerned about our property value.
I'm concerned about noise pollution. I'm concerned about my
privacy. With that walkway going right past my house and the
cars coming in and out, again, if there was a parking structure
that made any sense, which I don't think this one does. If there
was a parking situation in this scenario that made sense to
where the traffic would not come out on Hubbard, then I
wouldn't ... I don't know. I think I would be very affected too.
I'm concerned about property value, my privacy, noise pollution,
air pollution, my quality of life. I can't sit on my front porch if this
is approved, and I don't know that I can gel out of my own
driveway anymore. Two hundred or so people are going to be
April 1, 2014
26355
able to come out, turn right onto Hubbard. I don't know if they
can tum Teff onto Hubbard. I don't know if that's going to be
approved or not. If they tum right onto Hubbard to want to gel
to Eight Mile Road at the slop sign, I dont know if I'll be able to
gel out unless I turn right. I think that's it. Thank you for your
time.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou very much. Well said. Yes, sir.
Derek McLean,
20404 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Hi. How are you
doing? Bear with me here, I'm a little tired. Getting started
here. I received this letter probably Iasi week, that was for the
informational meeting we had last night at 7:00. 1 live and work
in Livonia. Actually, I even go to the Livonia Recreational
Center. I really love the gym there. I went there last night just
to see what was going on and I was blindsided by this idea.
When asked why we didn't receive a letter for today's hearing,
we were told that, now you're being told. So I was notified of
today's hearing Iasi night at approximately 7:00 p.m. I gel up
every morning at 5:00. 1 work at Ideal over on SchoolcmR.
I've been there almost nine years. I went to work. I worked 10
hours so I got off at about 4:30, got home at 5:00, just enough
time to take a shower and ran over there. No dinner. Got up,
went to work today. I got no sleep last night at all. This has
been a direct impact on my life. I got no sleep at all. Tossing,
turning, worrying, imagining the worse. So moving forward, I've
lived on Hubbard since 2008. 1 also work in Livonia off of
SchoolcraR, which I already said. I've been there for nine years
in September. I also have lived in Livonia the majority of my life,
born and raised. Attended schools like Cass Elementary,
Holmes Middle School, Churchill High. I am a true believer of
this community. When I first saw the house, I thought to myself,
I dont know about this. In fact, my realtor Cathy, said, you are
nuts if you buy this house. It was foreclosed. It was beat up
pretty bad. Needless to say, I'm a visionary and I've always
seen the things for what they could be. I quickly fell in love with
the attached garage and the fact that it sat so far off the road.
As you see on the bottom left, and you can tell from that
drawing that it does sit farther back in the field. You can seethe
attached garage.
Mr. Taormina:
Derek, can we confirm that? Is that right here?
Mr. McLean:
Yes, that's my house. Correct. Thank you. The attached
garage and the fact that it sal so far off the road and had a
beautiful field and trees behind it. So I bought it and was soon
to meet my neighbors, Mike and Ralph. My parents got
April 1, 2014
26356
divorced when I was 12. 1 moved around enough to know great
neighbors from bad ones, and these neighbors I have today, I
would call fiends or family. The impact that this has on me
started when they destroyed the beautiful field behind my
house, put up a fence and a 10 fool dirt bene and almost killed
my beautiful three 30 fool tall evergreens doing so. I was
against this from the beginning. I liked the things the way they
are when I moved in. This is why I bought the house. There is
no one in this world who would be okay with what they are trying
to do behind our homes unless there was something in it for
them other than a swamp full of mosquitos. I sprayed four times
Iasi summer and previous years only once. Your decision
directly affects me and my neighbors. If this is passed, I will sell
my home and/or rent it out. I will not slay there. When I asked
the Mayor Iasi night how he fell if someone put a parking
structure behind his house, his first response was something
short of political mumbo jumbo. Then later on I asked and he
said, I quote, I would not want that. I replied sincerely and said
thanks. The fine line is honesty, lmlh and respect. I'm sad to
say but I have lost my respect for McLaren. They have been
very misleading on what they want to do and what they are
going to do. I don't believe a word that comes out of their
mouths anymore. They said they could put the lights on timers.
They said they would plant trees on the berm. They said that
the retention pond would drain and not tum into a swamp filled
with mosquitos. And most importantly, they said all we need is
a little parking lot. I feel like a fool or sucker for being misled.
Jumping back to last night at this informational meeting when I
first saw the pant for the plan, I thought to myself, they must be
doing some really good drugs over there because this is
absolutely insane, something short of a pipe dream. In fact, so
insane anyone that thinks otherwise is in fact insane their
selves. There is not a single person who works at McLaren who
would be okay with this if they were in our shoes. If so, I'll sell
you my house. If you guys want to play monopoly, then play it
and buy all the surrounding homes. I know after what you did in
the field and your future intentions, I do not wish to live there
anymore. And on that, I will end my rant. I have some pictures
here I would like you to see from when I moved in, before and
after, plus the construction that lasted all summer. I ask of you,
the Council, when you vote to try and imagine yourselves in our
shoes. Could you ladies and gentlemen of the council honestly
see this behind your homes? Thank you for your time. And I do
have some photos that actually look me quite some time to put
together and I had to go make them up. There's maybe a
handful of photos here of just what I've been through in the last
six years, the first couple pages if you guys would flip through.
April 1, 2014
26357
Mr. Morrow:
We will review it coming down the line. Would you want us to
hang onto these and forward them to the City Council?
Mr. McLean:
Yes, that's fine. There's just one page I have to grab out of the
back and you guys can have it. That's fine.
Mr. Morrow:
In other words, we can send it along with whatever our
recommendation is and I assume you'll probably show up at that
meeting and you can relneve it then.
Mr. McLean:
Oh, yeah. It was a $2 notebook and the pants weren't that
expensive.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll mail it back to you, okay?
Mr. McLean:
Okay. I appreciate it.
Mr. Morrow:
We can give it back to you tonight or we can sent it to the City
Council.
Mr. McLean:
Okay. Thanks a lot for your time. Oh, and one more thing loo.
You know, I was so terrified when I found out last night, I
contacted Channel 7 news. Theyre here. Jeff is sitting down
over there. He wants to cover the story. He thinks it's an
interesting story.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. As long as he understands that this is just the first step
and there will be another step after this.
Mr. McLean:
Right. I said to him, thanks for your support and he said, well,
you know, I'm just covering the story. I feel like if the media
sees this, they will understand. They will support us.
Mr. Morrow:
We appreciate that.
Mr. McLean:
Thankyou.
Robert Austin, 20306 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48152. My wife and I have
lived there for almost 30 years. We moved in in 1985, and
many of those years I've spent coming to meetings like this to
fight proposals from McLaren. I've been to one for an above-
ground high octane gasoline storage lank, to this parking lot
debacle, now to this. They've proven that they don't keep their
promises. Other people have spoken on that. I won't take a lot
of time but I just wanted to raise my objections to this plan,
They have negatively affected our property values from what
April 1, 2014
26358
they've already done. This will just annihilate them. They've had
a very negative impact on the quality of living for the residents
and homeowners in that general area with the noise at night,
with the traffic, with the smog, everything that goes on at that
place. I would just encourage the Planning Commission to not
recommend passing this resolution onto the Council. Thank
you.
Nabil Nouman, 20341 Parker, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 was deployed for three
years in Imq with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Actually, my main goal
when I was there was to come home with the money I saved
and buy a home that's going to be my haven, a home where I
can relax. I found this house in 2011 when I purchased it and
little did I know there were plans to change it into a three story
parking structure right next to my lot. What I saw tonight is
nothing but some rich company showing off their money, talking
about tens of millions of dollars to construct a building, talking
about there is no other commercial properties to purchase or to
use in the area, whether it's Livonia or making it sound like
being on the other side of 275 is way loo far. Being off Eight
Mile is not that close to a freeway. You're still a few miles away
from 96 and a few miles away from 275. Major, major
companies have the majonty of their shops or businesses or
manufactunng operations conducted on that 275 corridor. The
gentleman from McLaren pointed out that his employees are
going to be able to have a green view. I will sit in my backyard
looking at a three level parking structure with lights on lop of it.
I'm pretty sure his engineers make a good amount of money.
I'm pretty sure they can drive a little bit further, and if so I'm
pretty sure the neighborhood will pay for the gas just to drive out
to that other side of 275 or McLaren can pay them for that.
When describing the project, the gentleman reading the project
was talking about efforts to limit the light. One thing the Army
taught me is if you want to point a light al some target, you don't
point the light directly. You point it on the ground or somewhere
else and you'll still gel the splash. That's number one thing in
tactical maneuvers. The lights from cars coming in and out of
that structure are going to light up the whole neighborhood,
whether there's the light fixtures or not. It's just from the
vehicles going in and out. The noise, the speed bumps,
whatever it is it's going to come in and out and obviously they
work at night and everybody agrees that they do not commit to
their word. They're going to tum that structure into just a small
parking lot with a berm and the trees, and they never put the
trees in, and now they're talking about all these issues. One
thing I noticed when showing the sketches of the project, not
one single image is from one of the house's perspectives. The
April 1, 2014
26359
last picture they added today is not close to reality. Its not that
close. None of the images that they have has a man next to it
standing almost as tall as one of the parking structure's floors or
stones. That is not realistic. I'm not an engineer but if you look
at those images, there is no image that will show what we will
see from our backyards. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: First of all, I want to thank you for your service. Its coming from
a Korean veteran to you.
Mr. Nouman: Thank you much.
Melissa Wegener, 20445 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48152. We are on the west
side across from the Cushman Building. We have had for
several years problems with the lights along that building. They
are not box lights. They come out. It goes into Catherine's
house, lights up my living room at night. Across the street from
the Cushman Building is a storage facility. The whole side of
that building is full of lights. I encourage you to drive down
Hubbard at night. Its lit up like a Chnstmas tree, and then you
want to add all those lights over there. I've asked McLaren
several times over the last four or five years to change those
lights, to tum the box lights. They're right down to the ground.
I also have a refrigeration company behind me. They have the
same lights on their building. My bedroom lights up at night with
the shades closed from the amount of light coming in there.
You're going to have a structure up here, more lights in the
neighborhood at night. It might as well be daytime back there.
You talk about traffic. Hubbard goes down to Webster
Elementary. Clarenceville is on the east side of Hubbard.
Livonia District is on the west side. We have two bus routes up
and down that street. You also have Webster Elementary which
is a county program for special ed. You have busses in there
from Northville, Redford, Garden City. I work in the district. I
know what busses go in there. That's more traffic. Al 3:00 in
the afternoon, those people are buzzing up and down that street
coming out of that school. There's been an officer silting on the
street the Iasi couple days trying to clock people, but he's there
at 5:00 at night when all the traffic is gone. So you haven't
calculated in that extra traffic you have from other things going
on in the area. Then you have the storage facility over here
who is running businesses out of there, lawn and snow removal
companies, auto repair shops in there. They run all hours of the
night. Three o'clock in the morning when it's snowing, the snow
plow company is in and out running trucks. Their lights are on.
Their bays are open. That backs right up to Catherine's house.
She has to look at that and I'm talking it's literally maybe three
April 1, 2014
26360
feet from the back of that to her back door. I mean it's right
there on the properly line. So we have all this going on already,
and then McLaren runs their testing all hours of the night.
Upstairs in my bedroom at night, I can hear those dynometers
running. I hear this humming all night. Now, I thought there's
an ordinance for operations. The quiet time is after 11:00 p.m.
I've been told it doesn't apply to us. I don't know what that
zoning in there is, if they have a time limit. They said one time
that they didn't really care because if they have a job to do, they
have to finish it and they don't care about the ordinance
because I've asked before with that gentleman back there a
couple years ago and that's the response I got. And I've asked
the supervisory and maintenance people about changing the
lights. They've never done that. I encourage you to go down
there at night and see how lit up it is, and you want to add more
lights back there. It's not a good idea. You cant function with
that. I understand he needs space. I understand that. It's
getting fight. Theyre growing, which is good. You just spent a
ton of money. They just redid all those buildings. You see how
nice they look. So if they can throw that money away all of a
sudden to tear it all apart, it's just a couple years old, and then
rebuild all over again. What does that tell you? It's just
disposable with no consideration for what we need or even to
come and ask us. So I hope you look at this. I hope you come
out to the property. You look and you see what's going on. That
berm that they promised theyd put trees on . Mike's
backyard, his whole fenceline was nice arborvitaes. They're all
dead. The sand, the dirt, everything killed his stuff. They never
put the trees on the berm. They didn't do anything. So, you
know, we're back to the same square again. I hope you really
think hard about this and ask the questions. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you
Ralph Marlin, 20366 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I've been there for 50
years before McLaren. In 1969, the house that's next door to
me at 20404 was moved off of Eight Mile Road. It was zoned
Rural Urban Farm at that time. When McLaren bought the
property, the area behind them was zoned Rural Urban Farm or
residential. They knew it when they bought it and yet they still
bought it. They knew it 10 years ago and they knew it five or six
years ago when they wanted to put the parking in. The
neighbors and I got together. We decided, well, to help
McLaren out and help the City out, let's allow them to put in a
row of parking spaces behind the wall, which is all they asked
for at that time. I got a letter here from Gary Crone from
McLaren to City Council dated April 21, 2010. It says, subject -
April 1, 2014
26361
Petition 2009-11-0102, McLaren Performance Technologies,
Conditional Rezoning Agreement, Statement of Voluntary
Conditions. Conditional rezoning agreement, conditional. They
knew it was residential zoning. They knew people had property
all around there and had been there for 50 years, 40 years or
longer. When they asked for that conditional rezoning, we
offered it to them. We said instead of running back and forth to
meetings and changing your plans 20 limes, lake a row of
parking behind that wall and that will take care of your problem.
Great. That's a wonderful thing. And after last night, this
dazzles me too because I'm 350 feel away from the back of the
building. When I look out of my window, I see the back of the
building. I see all the stacks that they don't want the office
people to see. I hear all the noise that they dont want the office
people to hear and I see the neighborhood values going
downhill when this plant, especially this monster that they're
talking about, goes into operation. Values in the City of Livonia
generally I think have gone down since the recession and it
probably will slay down for awhile, but this is going to hurl bad.
I talked to a real estate lady in 2009. 1 said, would you come out
and give me an idea what I can gel for my house. She said,
okay, I can do that. And I said, I want you to give me an idea of
what you can gel for it if there's a parking lot next to my lot line.
She said, the people wont gel out of the car to look at it. They
won't even buy it. So my 50 years of investing in this little
house would be worth nothing or next to nothing. I question the
fad that they can go in there and rezone just for their benefit,
and I know it benefits the City, but it's to their benefit to rezone
it, and it's to heck with everybody else that's around it that have
been puffing in all these years. The plant manager talked about
the field was all overgrown with weeds and all that stuff. He
didn't know or evidently didn't work there at the time when my
neighbor and I went out on our riding lawnmowers keeping that
area clear for probably seven or eight years because they never
cut it. There were trees out there all over the place that grew up
because we couldn't cul the trees down, but we cut the grass.
The neighbors have put up with McLaren. Their bags full of
sedaline that the guys lake out at midnight at the back door of
the building and you wonder where the hell that comes from.
Your windows are shaking and rattling. I want to see Livonia
succeed. I've been a resident since 1969. My father bought his
properly in Livonia 76 years ago on Inkster Road. So a long
time Livonia resident, but I hale to see everything go bad in that
neighborhood. Like the lady said, the one gentleman said, it's a
wonderful area. We don't think about people breaking into our
houses. When you have a problem, your neighbors are there
without being asked, and its bad for all of us. But think about
April 1, 2014
26362
the rezoning and think about when you walk out your back door
in the morning to have a cup of coffee on your deck, you're
looking at something 150 feet away three stories high with cars
all over it. It's not a good thing. I appreciate your time.
Craig Rickle, 20325 Parker, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Me and my wife, we just
purchased this house two years ago. We looked around for a
long time to find a nice secluded lot. We finally found what we
wanted. I don't know if you can put them pictures up with the
houses and the trees and that. Anyways, even when they did
all the construction, put the berm in and everything, when we
moved in there, you couldn't hear Eight Mile. You couldn't hear
nothing. All the trees and everything had it totally blocked out.
Now they cul these trees down and that's all open. You hear
engines now. Never heard that. We're the second big lot below
that yellow line. That was our view. Now if you can put that
picture up of the backside of the parking structure, and that's
what we're going to have to look at. That one there. If you want
that in your backyard, and that's the whole reason why we
moved and purchased this house for being secluded and that,
and like everybody else said, they haven't put the trees up and
everything they're going to do. Now I hear the test engines and
that. I do service for a big company that does test cells and
that. They expand. They expand. They expand and they're still
expanding. They're getting funded by the state or federal. They
can build another facility. There is no problem with that. This is
not the place for them. That empty spot they're talking about in
the back there, I guarantee you within three years there will be
test cells back there. Three of them. They expand and expand
because this is the modern technology. The government is
giving them money. The lower the gas mileage or raise the gas
mileage and that. So it's got to be test cells. It's the only way
they can do it. Theyre just going to keep expanding. It's not
why I came here to live. I came for peace and quiet which we
had and it's slowly going away. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. I see no one else coming down.
Mr. Taylor: You might want to explain that we're not rezoning anything.
Mr. Morrow: Yes. What Mr. Taylor said is, this is slnctly a site plan. We're
not doing any zoning tonight. All we're doing is looking at the
zoning that's in place now and seeing how it fits on the
particular lot. But the term zoning did come up a couple limes
and that's not what we're doing. Its site plan review. That's
what we're doing.
Mr. Taylor: I understand that
April 1, 2014
26363
Mr. Martin:
I made a comment about the letter from McLaren to the City
Council about the conditioning rezoning. Again, we were
holding out not to allow them to do that for our benefit, but for
the benefit of McLaren and the city. I drew that plan up. They
look it from there and did something with it. But because we
allowed them to do that, we're looking at three stories of cars
and 200 people coming to the end of the block.
Mr. Taylor:
Its already done, so we're not really going to have anything to
do with that. Actually, we're talking about a site plan. Actually,
the zoning ordinance, and I'm not saying it's right, we didn't
have to even notify you people that there was a change in the
site plan. Through the Mayor and our Planning Director and the
Planning Commission said, let's let them know anyway what's
going on.
Mr. Martin:
I appreciate that.
Mr. Taylor:
Since 1971, 1 was on the Zoning Board of Appeals for eight
years. I was on the Council for 25 years and now on the
Planning Commission for about four or five years. I have heard
almost everything that goes on Eight Mile, that 300 foot mark,
and people complaining about what's going in. Its been
induslnal for years. And this is probably the biggest problem
that I've seen come on Eight Mile, this parking structure. I can
certainly understand and feel for the fact that you have a
problem with it, but this has been going on for 30 or 40 years.
The zoning is there already. Its a 300 fool zoning. Most of the
time, from when I've been on the Zoning Board and Council, we
held tight to that 300 fool zoning. Now, once in a while some
parking went in the back. I remember that, and obviously, I'm
sympathetic to what you're here for, but we have to know what
we're looking at. Actually, it they weren't pulling a parking
structure on the back and going three stones high, they could
redo that building with no problem.
Mr. Martin:
And I understand that.
Mr. Taylor:
I just want to lel everybody know that.
Mr. Martin:
And I appreciate your comment about the jewelry company.
You didn't think it was appropriate. That's smart. That's good.
But if they put a refinery in your backyard, I think you would be
right here with me saying, I don't want a refinery in my
backyard.
Mr. Taylor: I understand that
April 1, 2014
26364
Mr. Martin: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Wegener: Would you please make sure when we address this situation,
though it might not be your department, but this retention pond,
quote unquote, whatever that is back there. I was walking the
block the other night and there's a huge fence that's supposed
to be closed there. That thing is open all the time. It's a huge
gale and a kid could walk back in there and fall in the pond back
there in that water. Nine o'clock at night it's wide open. It's not
protected or anything back there.
Mr. Morrow:
One of the benefits of having the McLaren people here, they're
hearing all these concerns so hopefully it's not falling on deaf
ears as it relates to the lights, as it relates to the other things.
Ms. Wegener:
Yes. Right. And hopefully it will be addressed. I just want to
make sure the fencing is still back there when that structure
goes up to keep people out of there.
Mr. Morrow:
We would expect full cooperation should this go through to
fmilion and even with your concern about the retention pond,
that's on-going. That should be done right along. We hope that
will be taken care of and anything else that they've heard here
tonight regardless of this petition.
Ms. Wegener:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I see no one else coming forward. Its not a public hearing, but I
am going to close it.
Mr. McLean:
What happens next?
Mr. Morrow:
Do you want to go to the podium, sir, so we can have a
discussion? The people here tonight, you've heard from the
petitioner, you've heard from us, you've heard from the
residents. What we do now is, once everybody has had their
say, I'll close the discussion and ask for a motion. Whether it's
approving, denying, tabling, whatever, if it is approved or
denied, this will go forward to the City Council with our
recommendation. What you've seen here tonight will also be
presented at the City Council level. They will make the final
determination of the petition. I'm not sure if they will notify you.
They may or may not, but if you're interested, it would be a good
idea to notify the Council office so when this comes forward, to
lel me know and you can gel the word out to the neighborhood
April 1, 2014
26365
because we're trying to keep it open to the public as we move
forward.
Mr. McLean:
That's what I was wondering, when the final vole will be.
Mr. Morrow:
The Council office will schedule their own hearing on this. We
have no input into that. We will just forward the approval or
denying to them along with all these plans, so you'll go through
this at least one more time.
Mr. McLean:
So we'll come back here again?
Mr. Morrow:
To the City Council and they will ultimately decide what will be
done, any modifications to the plans, any other approvals, they
will have the final say.
Mr. McLean:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
This is just a chance for us to send out the plans after reviewing
them. It makes them a little more efficient because they don't
have to take it from the top. They can see where we are and
they can add or subtract from R.
Mr. McLean:
Thank you. And I have one quick thing. I did notice, I mean
obviously they'll be expanding, but I really think the biggest
problem is the parking structure. I did notice even with the
combined buildings, tearing down the Cushman, its 40 absent
spots. When we said that if you guys could do a little flat
parking lot, I mean I'm sure you could put more than that back
there. The parking structure is for like a couple hundred lots. If
I wanted to live next to Greek Town Casino, I'd move down to
Detroit. That's all I got. Thanks.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you very much. I hope that answers your question.
Before I ask for the motion, I want to compliment you folks. I've
been doing this for a number of years, and I know you're
concerned with it. You've been very ladylike and gentlemanlike.
The Commission appreciates that. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Bahr:
Before a motion, would it be okay to bring the petitioner back up
to maybe give him an opportunity to respond and I had some
questions too.
Mr. Morrow:
What's what we're here for if you'd like to hear from another
resident.
April 1, 2014
26366
Mr. Bahr:
No, I'm saying give the petfioner a chance to respond to
everything we've heard in the last 30-00 minutes.
Mr. Morrow:
Did you want to call someone up?
Mr. Bahr:
I'm just asking if the petitioner can come back up.
Mr. Morrow:
Absolutely.
Mr. Maxwell:
Did you wanllo askquestions?
Mr. Morrow:
You've heard the input from the residents. Is there anything
you'd like to add just in the interest of full disclosure?
Mr. Maxwell:
I'll talk about the parking since that's the one that seems to be
the biggest issue for everybody. When the original flat surface
small lot was proposed and put into place, that was based on
having a minimal expansion, not anywhere near the size and
scope we're talking about here. The benning was put in, the
grass and the retention pond were put in. We definitely did not
put in the trees and other things as promised. That was partly,
right or wrong, because we didn't put the surface lot in. We
didn't do all that so we were probably remiss in doing that.
There is no reason why it can't still go in. Whether or not that's
enough, or if there's other things we can put at the back of the
garage, we're willing to look aljusl about most anything to make
it visually more pleasing. There's no intent to deceive anybody
here or the neighbors about what we're trying to do. Basically,
we got the okay in December from the company to just entertain
doing this, so we've been busy trying to figure out the best
means to put this together and present it. We had no visions of
doing this kind of thing back when that small flat area was put
into place. No one was trying to deceive anybody. Now, yes, it
is an intrusion. It is adding more than what is there today, and
this and the City Council meeting is the forum and the right
place to discuss that. There's pros and cons to doing
everything and ultimately it's up to the City and the Zoning
Board to make those decisions. We're just trying to lel
everybody know what we think we need to do and want to do in
that back area. If there are ways we can improve it over and
above to make it easier on everybody in the neighborhood,
we're willing to talk and entertain just about anything. This is
really just the first proposal that's put forward to the City to try
and see if it's workable and can we do it.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Bahr wanted to hear from you again. Some of the things
you heard may not necessarily pertain to what we have before
April 1, 2014
26367
us tonight. If you can work to try and co-exist with the neighbors
a little bit better, if that's within the purview, we would expect
that, and I think Mr. Wilshaw has something.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'll start with a comment just briefly to the audience asking about
the process it needs to go through. Obviously, we are a
recommending body that is going to make a recommendation to
City Council. The City Council has to hear this and ultimately
make the decision, but in addition to that, there are some zoning
variances. It would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
as well. So there's really three steps to this process. We are
one of those three steps. Anyway, I just wanted to point that
out.
Mr. Morrow:
Good point.
Mr. Wilshaw:
But my question to the petitioner, the parking obviously is the
central area of concern for residents, and it is definitely a unique
request to see a parking deck on the building in lieu of a large
sea of ground parking, which may or may not even be able to fit
in that area. Of course, we went through that four, five years
ago when it was proposed and I was here at that time. The
concems that I see primarily focus on the distance between the
parking deck and the residents and lighting is an area of
concern. I brought that up eadier and I think that still needs to
be flushed out a little bit because that does impact residents at
nighttime, and then, of course, the screening of that area
through landscaping. Any proposal that would go forward I'm
sure will require that the landscaping plan that was submitted
prior, a few years ago, be completed and that there be adequate
landscaping in the back of that property. My question for you,
you have about a 40 fool ddveway, as I look at the plan,
between the building and the parking deck itself. There's a
pretty wide area of space that actually you can see on this plan
right here. Is there any thought process of possibly moving that
parking deck north, closer to the building, five, len feet or so that
would lighten that space up a little bit, allow for adequate truck
traffic to still pass through there, but also reduce the impact
that's on the residents to the south?
Mr. Maxwell:
I have not personally. Mike, can we look at that? I'm not
opposed to looking at it. I don't know what it impacts - the
number of spaces and I believe, somebody stated that there
were some rules about how many spaces you need relative to
the number of people employed, and we'd have to look at that.
April 1, 2014
26368
Mr. Gilles:
From a technical point of view, it can be accommodated. One
concern is always mixing truck traffic and the passenger traffic.
In this case, with employees parking that close to the building,
one thing you always try to do is keep the trucks away from the
people. That's why we tried to maximize that space.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I understand that and I do appreciate that. I think there's a
number of things McLaren has thought through on this plan to
actually benefit the area. One of them is moving the truck well
and receiving operations to Building #1 to make it more central
on the properly so it's not close to the Hubbard Road entrance.
I think that's an improvement, but it is still a fairy wide space
between that receiving area and the parking deck Mark is
highlighting with this pointer there. I'm not an engineer so I'm
not going to tell you how many feel to move it, but I think there's
some room that perhaps you can look at tightening that up a
little bit if this moves forward. Its something to think about.
Mr. Gilles:
I'll commit to the board that we'll take a look at that and see if
we can do some rearranging back there to move that further up
into the existing area and out of that backyard area.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The other thing related to that parking deck is, in the southeast
corner of the parking deck is a stairwell. There's two stairwells.
One near the catwalk that goes across and then there's the one
in the southeast comer so that people in the parking deck can
walk down to the ground level and be able to walk to the
buildings. You may want to consider moving that stairwell in the
southeast corner up to maybe the northeast corner of that
parking deck, just again to try to slide it up a little bit further, a
little further away from the residents, so that if a person is
standing in that stairway, they're not looking down into the
backyards of neighboring properties.
Mr. Gilles:
We have to meet the requirements of the building code for
exiling out of the structure. So as long as we meet those
requirements, we can definitely consider moving that stairwell to
the north.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Little things like that are just ways to try to minimize the impact
that would be on the residential property abutting you. Thank
you for considering those.
Mr. Taylor:
I think that one of the questions that some of the residents had
with the lights and the parking structunng shining through. I
know on most structures, this is the first one I've seen all metal
like this, theyre pretty well enclosed where the lights don't go
April 1, 2014
26369
through and into the neighborhood. Is there a way of closing
that whole structure off so that lights dont go through and into
the neighborhood?
Mr. Gilles: This structure incorporates screening, and screening allows air
to flow through the parking structure. Air is a necessity in an
open-air parking structure because otherwise you're into
sprinkler systems and other fire protection systems. Also, it
becomes a much darker, less secure space. So the goal is to
keep the parking structure open and transparent on the inside.
The screening diffuses light from the headlights, but allows the
air to flow through. The screening can be variegated to take
away from the monolithic look of the structure to add some
appeal to the exterior facade and to provide certain aspects of
light diffusion at certain areas. For example, at the end of a
drive aisle, it may be opaque, and in other areas, maybe on a
stairwell or something, it's more transparent because what we're
trying to do is keep a certain amount of openness to the
structure, and we can adjust the opaqueness to suit the traffic
on the structure.
Mr. Taylor: What I'm looking at on the west side of the building, that looks
like it's got some sort of brick structure or something on R.
Mr. Gilles:
That's the screening on the outside.
Mr. Taylor:
That is brick, then?
Mr. Gilles:
Typically, it's a metal and it could be a mesh; it could be louvers.
Mr. Taylor:
But it's solid to where the lights can't go through?
Mr. Gilles:
There's a different number of materials you can use for the
opaque portions.
Mr. Taylor:
That's all I'm trying to do is diffuse the light.
Mr. Gilles:
Right.
Mr. Taylor:
I see that would diffuse the light. On the east side of the
building, is that the same type of thing?
Mr. Gilles:
Yes.
Mr. Taylor:
On the east side of the structure, I should say.
Mr. Gilles:
That's correct.
April 1, 2014
26370
Mr. Taylor:
Its the same way?
Mr. Gilles:
Its the same way.
Mr. Taylor:
And you can't do that along the back part, or along the south
side of the building?
Mr. Gilles:
Yes, we can. In the other picture we've shown, that one there,
shows the same screening.
Mr. Taylor:
Okay. I didn't recognize it. Thank you.
Ms. McIntyre:
On the walkway, one of the things that I think we heard that is
certainly understandable, is people are passing over the
walkway, right, and have a clear elevated view into somebody's
home. Is there a way that side of the walkway could be some
sort of opaque glass or frosted glass? When I think about that
and look at where that is and the position of people's windows,
that would certainly be a concern of mine. Again, understanding
that these are employees. This isn't a shopping mall, but at the
same time, I wouldn't want anybody to have a clear shot view
into my house.
Mr. Gilles:
We can use smoke glass or something where you can't really
see out, but the light would come through but you can't really
see out, like a shower or something like that. Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
I think where the Commission is coming from here is, we're
trying to mitigate as much as possible the impact to the
surrounding areas, and we know there's building codes and we
know there's ventilation and that, but lights, there may be a way
to shield them from the neighborhood but yet still give full
illumination to the parking area and/or the building. So
mitigation is the key word there.
Mr. Gilles:
Yes. Whatever comes out of this, we will take a look at it and
do everything we can to try to mitigate those concems.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Bahr?
Mr. Bahr:
What is the height of the parking deck as it is proposed right
now?
Mr. Gilles:
The top level is around 18 feet.
Mr. Bahr:
Eighteen?
April 1, 2014
26371
Mr. Gilles:
Yes.
Mr. Bahr:
That seems really short.
Mr. Morrow:
Thalwould be the third level.
Mr. Bahr:
Ifyou're sure aboulthal...
Mr. Gilles:
The floor level of the parking deck?
Mr. Bahr:
What is the height of the deck, the lop point of the deck? I
guess not including the lights, but the structural part of the
deck? You're saying the floor of the third level is 18 feel?
Mr. Gilles:
Yes.
Mr. Bahr:
I was just trying to gel a sense of what it was relative to the
building up front. The building up front is 51 feel and this is 18
feel. That's helpful for me as far as providing some perspective
as to how tall this deck actually is. Then also, you may have
said this earlier, how many more vehicles are we talking, just
relative to some of the traffic concerns that we're talking about.
How many more vehicles are we talking here per day roughly?
Mr. Gilles:
If you assume everybody comes one man/one car, it's going to
be another 100 vehicles.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay.
Mr. Maxwell:
I'm not sure where it stands, but I believe one of the things ... I
don't know if it was a stale or county initiative, but I believe there
is to be a traffic study out there. It was mentioned before. I
make a left on Eight Mile every night going home, and I hate
that because I'm asking to gel hit. I would love to see a traffic
light out there even in lodays configuration, whether or not the
county will do that. I'm not sure what that process is, but it's
something that I think should be looked at because that should
be the main way out, not Hubbard, for people especially if there
is a traffic device that will allow a controlled exit. They can get
out in plenty of time and we can certainly look at restricting
people from using Hubbard as a standard exit. It would be
emergency only.
Mr. Bahr:
As much as I don't want to see another light on Eight Mile, I
know that could make a lot of sense.
April 1, 2014
26372
Mr. Maxwell:
You can have them activated where it slays green unless
somebody comes up to it.
Mr. Bahr:
That can make a lot of sense. The other thing is more of a
comment. You alluded to it earlier. I think you should definitely
lake it under advisement about beefing up the landscaping
around that bene. The pictures this gentlemen provided were
really helpful for me. I did look at the site but I obviously am not
trudging through the backyard to see exactly what you guys are
seeing.
Mr. Maxwell:
There's no doubt that the west side of that back property is wide
open, and the only thing that's there is the fence and the berm.
There is no additional landscaping.
Mr. Bahr:
Right. Even in the picture, you can see there was some tree
coverage in some places.
Mr. McLean:
That's my tree. Sorry for interrupting.
Mr. Bahr:
Whether its your tree or their tree, the point is, its not for them,
and I can just see how that could probably make this a lot more
palatable for the residents I would think. I'm all set.
Ms. McIntyre:
I got sidetracked in that conversation and now I forget what I
was going to say. I'm sorry.
Mr. Morrow:
The Chair is going to rule. I think we're going to ask for a
motion. I see this gentleman up here. We did offer all the time
we needed to hear. Some of the commission wanted to talk. It
came to you? Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McIntyre:
I don't know if this is possible, but I do know and understand
neither of you are the architects for the garage, correct?
Mr. Gilles:
We engineer those types of garages, yes.
Ms. McIntyre:
You do? Okay. Is it possible for you to do a simulation to show,
and I dont know if you can do it for a garage. I know you can
do it for other things because I work at Ford and I've seen them.
For you to do a simulation where you can show what the traffic
headlights look like as people are coming in and out of the
garage. Do you know what I'm saying? Is it possible for you to
put something like that together - anything can be modeled,
right- without undue expense and trouble?
April 1, 2014
26373
Mr. Gilles:
That's something we can look into. I know we haven't done it
previously in terms of a simulation. Usually we just use the
pholometncs, but we can definitely look into it for you.
Mr. Morrow:
With that, I'm going to ask for a motion. Everybody has had a
chance to input.
Mr. McLean:
I did want to ask another question.
Mr. Morrow:
I would like to have it but I think I did say you'd have ample
opportunity to ask at the City Council.
Mr. McLean:
Okay. They told us yesterday, the structure was 18 feet. So if
you add another 9, that would be to the top, 9 to 10 feet.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Mr. McLean:
My question was, how do they feel if this was behind their
house?
Mr. Morrow:
We're nolgoing to gel into thattonight.
Mr. McLean:
Okay. I'm the one that's got to get up at 5:00 in the morning. I
understand.
Mr. Morrow:
Now can we please have a motion?
Ms. Smiley:
Keeping in mind that this is about the structure and not about
the zoning, I'd like to make an approving resolution.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-19-2014
RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-03-08-03
submitted by McLaren Performance Technologies/Linamar,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
three-story office-research and manufacturing facility and erect
a parking structure on properties at 32233 and 32367 Eight Mile
Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Hubbard Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 3 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. SP1 dated March
7, 2014, as revised, prepared by Tacoma Engineers, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
April 1, 2014
26374
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Drawing
No. A4 dated March 7, 2014, as revised, prepared by
Newlon Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
3. For safety purposes, a "No Left Tum" sign shall be installed
near the site's driveway off Hubbard Road prohibiting
trucks and vehicles from turning south into the neighboring
residential areas;
All ground -mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a height
of twenty (20') feel, and the light poles mounted on the
upper deck of the parking structure shall be a maximum
height of fourteen (14') feet as measured from the finish
elevation of the deck, provided the Petitioner determine
whether the parking structure light poles can be lowered
even further, and all lights shall be aimed and shielded so
as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines
and glaring into adjacent roadways and residential
properties;
That the Petitioner shall submit a revised landscape plan
that incorporates the berms and tree plantings in the
southern area of 32233 Eight Mile Road, as depicted on
the Plan marked Sheet No. RZ-1 dated Apnl 15, 2010, as
revised, prepared by Merritt McPherson Cieslak, P.C.,
submitted during the rezoning Petition 2009-11-01-02, and
shall include additional plantings in locations that will
further shield the parking structure from the view of the
adjoining residential properties;
6. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
building height and encroachment into the side setback
along Hubbard Road, subject to any conditions related
thereto;
7. The Petitioner shall work with the Inspection Department to
relocate the east stairwell of the parking structure further
north and away from the abutting residential property;
8. The Petitioner shall consider moving the parking structure
as far north on the site as possible, while still maintaining
adequate width of the dnve aisle and separation between
the structure and Building #1, such that the parking and
movement of trucks and other vehicles is not impeded or
adversely affected; and
April 1, 2014
26375
9. For added privacy to the residents on Hubbard, the
Pefitioner shall incorporate into the design and construction
of the elevated walkway located between the parking
structure and Building #1 a means of blocking or obscuring
the visibility of persons using the walkway;
10. 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,
11. 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 peril is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expimfion of said
period.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Ms. McIntyre: I'd like to offer up a suggested amendment to the approving
resolution. For safely purposes, that it be a "no left turn' onto
Hubbard for all traffic in consideration of the fact that there are
going to be an extra 100 vehicles a day, and even though they
will not be leaving with Webster's getting out, I think what we
heard tonight, the neighbor's concern about additional
southbound traffic.
Ms. Smiley: We're not limiting 9 to trucks. I have no problem with that.
Mr. Taylor: That's fine.
Mr. Taormina: A couple points of clarification, correction actually on #5. The
address 32205 should be replaced with 32233. Condition #6
should reference the setback as well as the building height in
terms of Zoning Board of Appeals action. Condition #4, which
addresses the height of the ground mounted light fixtures, Mr.
Wilshaw this evening asked the question, and I think it was
responded to affirmatively, that they would look at lowering the
height as low as 12 feet on top of the deck. So we may want to
address the light issue separately as it relates to the pole -
mounted lighting on the deck. Some other suggestions came
out and I would like, if the maker of the motion would consider,
memorializing those recommendations into this resolution so
that we can go back and have a record of that and make a
comparison when this goes before the City Council to see
whether or not those items have been addressed.
April 1, 2014
26376
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Do you have those tallied?
Mr. Taormina:
I think there were two particular items. I know Mr. Wilshaw had
two addressing the location of the stairwell on east side of
structure and the location of the structure itself and whether or
not it could be shifted slightly to the north to the extent possible.
Mr. Morrow:
I was going to ask you, Mr. Taormina, I saw you making notes
over there and we heard some things that we would like to
incorporate into the resolution.
Ms. Smiley:
So the location of the stairwell would be #9 and moving the
structure more north if possible?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I would like that in there please.
Ms. McIntyre:
I don't know if we feel it's necessary to the level of detail
requiring that the glass on the western walkway be opaque.
Mr. Morrow:
That was introduced. Mark, relative to some kind of shielding,
some kind of material there. You would think it would have it
just to keep them out of the elements, you know.
Mr. Taormina:
As I understand it, it's going to be enclosed. The question is
whether it will be a clear glazing or some other opaque or solid
material to be used. In looking at that, I would agree that at
least on the west side, that should be something to be
considered. The east side of that catwalk, if you will, probably is
less of an issue, but certainly the west side. We can incorporate
that language into a condition if that's the direction.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes. That's what we're trying to do right now is work some of
these things that came out of the meeting. One thing I've
learned also addresses the landscape plan. I see it was dated
Apnl, 2010. I'd like to have the staff look at it as it relates to,
now there will be parking deck back there to see if it can be
upgraded in any way to mitigate the line of sight from the
building to the residents if we're talking berms with trees on top
of it to shield from the residents. Will you be able to do that?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Ilhinkwhatwe'lldois....
Mr. Morrow:
Call it back?
Mr. Taormina:
No, not unless you desire to have it called back. We can
include it within Condition #5 or create a separate condition that
April 1, 2014
26377
would require a new landscape plan be submitted consistent
with the plan that was submitted back in 2010 but would show
additional trees.
Mr. Morrow:
With the view that there's going to be a parking deck in lieu of a
parking lot.
Ms. Smiley:
I'm hoping you have wording on this.
Mr. Taormina:
I have to make it.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. So we did the landscaping, increase the setback, we
eliminated the trucks only and then we did the location of the
stairwell, the structure moving more north and the walkway
glass shielding at the very minimum the west side. Is there
anything else?
Mr. Morrow:
I'm assuming, Mr. Taylor, you will go along with this?
Mr. Taylor:
I have no problem.
Mr. Bahr:
If the amendments are done, I just had a comment.
Mr. Morrow:
I think we're going to say the amendments are done.
Mr. Bahr:
I just want to lake a beef moment. I've been involved for the
last seven years with a group here in Livonia called Livonia
Community Marketing Consortium and we spend a lot of time
talking about the assets of the city and how the city can be
positioned for growth in the future. The thing we always come
back to is that, going all the way back to the City's founding, it's
made this city the place that it is, a place where people want to
live and a place where business wants to be, is its people. And
every time we had an issue like, and its not real often, but every
time we have an issue like this that gels a lot of attention, I'm
continually thankful for the courteousness and the civility and
the respect that everybody shows, the business and people. I
know this is something that is an emotional thing. Its very
personal, but everybody here tonight, even with strong opinions,
and totally justifiable opinions, has just been incredibly
courteous. So thank you for being that, not just for the sake of
tonight's meeting, but for the sake of the future of our City. I
would encourage you to continue to keep the dialogue open
with the business. While I certainly understand some of the
things that were expressed about feeling that you were
deceived, I think in the comments that you've heard, I think
we've heard that this business did not intent to deceive you and
ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,052nd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval
of the Minutes of the 1,052nd Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held on March 18, 2014.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-20-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,052nd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March
18, 2014, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES:
April 1, 2014
NAYS:
26378
ABSENT:
wants to work with you. I hope that dialogue can remain open
ABSTAIN:
and just thank you again for how you represented our city here
this evening.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. I will repeal what I said eadier. They will
make the final delerninafion. These are your elected officials.
Just to be sure you're notified again, contact the Council Office
and give them your name and number so you can be notified
when it goes on their agenda. This is just kind of a fail-safe kind
of thing because we have no idea how they will handle it. We
know how we handled it.
Ms. McIntyre:
They will be notified by the Zoning Board. They will all receive
letters.
Mr. Morrow:
That only applies to the City Council. As it relates to the zoning,
the Zoning Board will notify you when it comes up for those two
items, the height of the building and the one setback which was
like three feel short. With that, good night. Thank you for
coming.
ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,052nd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval
of the Minutes of the 1,052nd Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held on March 18, 2014.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-20-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,052nd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March
18, 2014, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES:
Taylor, Bahr, McIntyre, Wilshaw, Smiley, Morrow
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
April 1, 2014
26379
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,053'" Public
Heanngs and Regular Meeting held on April 1, 2014, was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Acting Secretary
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman