HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-10-13 16441
MINUTES OF THE 773rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
ie HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 13, 1998 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 773rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with approximately 30
interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi Michael Hale
William LaPine James C. McCann
Members absent: Elaine Koons
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; and Scott Miller, Planner
II; were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning or vacating request,this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing makes 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 approval. The Commission's
recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to
whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan
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 filing. 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.
Mr. McCann: Would the secretary begin with the pending items of the agenda.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced#7 on the agenda is Petition 98-8-2-16 by Dale T.
Culver d.b.a. Culver Custom Homes requesting waiver use approval to construct a
detached condominium project on property located on the north side of
Schoolcraft Road between Park Avenue and Fairway Drive in the SE 1/4 of Section
20.
Mr. McCann: The petitioner sent a letter dated October 9, 1998 and asked to have this
tabled to the next available meeting. Typically we do this at the request of
the petitioner for one adjournment. Is there a motion to table?
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was
16442
#10-165-98 RESOLVED,that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table Petition Petition 98-8-2-16 by Dale T. Culver d.b.a. Culver
Custom Homes requesting waiver use approval to construct a detached
condominium project on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft
Road between Park Avenue and Fairway Drive in the SE 1/4 of Section 20
to October 27, 1998.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: Piercecchi, Hale
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: We will notify anyone who wishes to be notified of the next meeting. It is
a Regular Meeting and you may not be allowed to talk unless there is unanimous consent
of the Commissioners.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced item#8 on the agenda is Petition 98-7-3-5 by
William&Lisa Flinchum requesting to vacate a portion of Oporto Avenue right-
of-way located west of Melvin Avenue between Morlock and Norfolk Avenues in
the NE 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. McCann: We received a letter dated October 8, 1998 from Mr. and Mrs. Flinchum
requesting the petition be withdrawn until such time as the matter of the
special assessment paving district itself is taken care of. Is there a motion
to table this at the petitioner's request until such time as the adjoining road
paving project is resolved?
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-166-98 RESOLVED,that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table Petition Petition 98-7-3-5 by William&Lisa Flinchum requesting
to vacate a portion of Oporto Avenue right-of-way located west of Melvin
Avenue between Morlock and Norfolk Avenues in the NE 'A of Section 2
to date uncertain.
16443
I
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the Public Hearing portion of the
agenda is Petition 98-7-1-12 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Section 23.01(a)of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, and Council Resolution#134-98, proposing to rezone property
located east of Stark Road between Orangelawn and Richland Avenues in the NE
1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The correspondence we have received is from the City's Engineering
Department. From an engineering standpoint,they have no objections to
the zoning change.
Mrs. Roberts, 9812 Stark Road: I am here tonight because I don't understand why they
have decided to pull us into this. In August we received a paper saying
they were going to rezone that piece of property. They rescheduled the
meeting and when we received the next one, we are now part of it. We do
not wish to be part of it, we were not asked to be part of it, we don't
understand why we were pulled into it.
Mr. Nagy: The first petition that you received dealt solely with the City of Livonia's
parcel which is the third parcel north of Richland Avenue. The City of
Livonia acquired that property and put it on the market to sell the property.
Based on the lot size that is involved here, the RUF zoning classification is
not appropriate because the parcel does not meet the RUF zoning
requirements. RUF zoning requirements require a full half-acre and that
parcel is substantially less than one-half acre. It is really in compliance
with the R-1 zoning which is already established along those lots on
Richland Avenue on the north side, as well as on the south side. In order
to bring the property in compliance with the proper zoning classification,
the Planning Commission initiated this hearing on the proposed change of
zoning. In evaluating that area,you will notice that the lots that are
already developed on Richland Avenue, which are R-1, have some lot
splits where a portion of that property has been split and attached to lots
already zoned R-1, as well as on the first lot where the house faces
Richland Avenue. East from Stark Road you will see that that lot is the
same size as the others that are already zoned R-1 in the area. So that too
doesn't meet the RUF zoning classification. Looking at the entire area,
the Planning Commission decided that rather than just address the one lot
that the city has, there is an opportunity here at the Planning
Commission's initiative, rather than waiting for property owners to file a
16444
zoning change to bring their property in compliance with the appropriate
446:, zoning classification, the Planning Commission decided to do it on their
own motion. What that really will do then is overcome the non-
compliance that the property has with respect to RUF zoning
classification. If you ever want to expand your home, add on a room, add
on a garage or whatever, you would not have to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Your lot would be fully conforming to the R-1 zoning that is
being proposed tonight. What we are doing here is really what we would
call housekeeping in trying to effect a zoning change to overcome non-
compliance with respect to existing lots, bringing them into compliance
with appropriate residential zoning of the area.
Mrs. Roberts: The property directly behind us, we live on the corner of Stark and
Richland and we face Stark Road, was already set up to be residential.
That is only 60'x137' and they actually had to buy a piece of the property
next door in order to make them in compliance. I can understand that.
Stark Road on the east side is all RUF except for the property you want to
rezone tonight and our property. I don't have a problem with giving them
a variance if he wants to build. I would like to conform to my
neighborhood. There are no residential houses on Stark Road. That is all
RUF from Orangelawn all the way down. The only thing that isn't is the
little piece of property that they want to build on that at one time belonged
to a lady that died and somehow the City of Livonia ended up with it for
taxes or whatever.
Mr. McCann: Your lot is a non-conforming RUF.
Mr. Roberts: We have had the RUF for thirty years. I would like to keep it that way.
Mr. McCann: But you are not RUE You may be zoned on the map that way, but the lot
size is not big enough.
Mrs. Roberts: From your description of a half-acre, no we are not.
Mr. McCann: We are trying to make the zoning fit what is really there.
Mr. Roberts: Are you going to do this to everybody?
Mr. McCann: No, but we want to try and do it so that there is not spot zoning where it is
inappropriate. We are going through the city on a regular basis trying to
bring the zoning to what is actually there if it is appropriate. In this case
you have R-1 to your south and to your east.
Mrs. Roberts: That R-1 subdivision is not a new subdivision. That has been there since
1955. It is because you have the residential across the street, all of a
sudden we don't count. We have been paying taxes for thirty years and
16445
like I say, it doesn't make a bit of sense. If you go down Stark Road and
you look at the houses, they are all rural looking. They are not residential.
You don't hit residential except for Richland that have a few houses there
that are subdivided and they have been that way since the 50s.
Mr. McCann: We are not trying to change your property or anything around you in any
way. What we are trying to do is make our zoning maps correct and make
it fit your property. If anything, it will increase your value because your
home will be a conforming use as opposed to a non-conforming use.
Essentially what we are trying to do is make our map fit correctly in the
city as to what is actually there. It will not affect you in any adverse way.
Mr. Roberts: How about in my pocketbook. What is the city going to do once they get
the R-1 rating?
Mr. McCann: Nothing.
Mr. Roberts: Sure they will. They'll say you need sidewalks and I am going to have
250' of sidewalk that I am going to have to pay for. I am a senior citizen
with a very small income. I won't be able to afford 250' of sidewalk
which the city will force me to put in.
Mr. McCann: John, do we have any plans for sidewalks?
Mr. Nagy: Not that I am aware of. Zoning doesn't trigger any need for public
improvements. It is an opportunity for you to have a conforming lot so
that if you ever sell and someone applies for a mortgage,the mortgage
company goes through, and one of the questions they always ask is"does
your lot conform to the established zoning?" The title search policy is to
send notice to the City of Livonia and ask us to comment as to whether the
property meets zoning requirements. If you were to sell your property, the
title company would notify our office and we would have to tell them that
while it is lawfully constructed, it is non-conforming because it doesn't
meet RUF zoning standards. So it is really in your best interests. I know
people are suspicious when they find out the government is really trying to
help you, but in this case we are really out there. We have city property
and we have an opportunity to square off the area. You can see there is R-
1 zoning to the east,to the south, and recently across the street there is R-1
zoning. It is an opportunity to correct the zoning map and make the
district conform. I wish I could assure you that there is no other
alternative; it is really to correct our zoning map.
Mr. Roberts: I disagree with that wholeheartedly. You are going to do what you want
to do and we are going to get shafted.
16446
Mr. Alanskas: On the west side where the school was, you said there was nothing since
1952. Last year we approved 14 lots in R-1 to put new homes in there.
Mrs. Roberts: That is a whole other issue because the man that you approved it for,
cannot even finish his houses in Redford Township, so he can't build in
Livonia until he does.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason why is because the state law has changed and went from R-1 to
site condos and that is why it is taking so long.
Thomas Tosdale, 34119 Richland: Something in writing about sidewalks. Residential
streets require sidewalks. Mr. Roberts is sitting with 250' and he will be
forced to put in sidewalks.
Mr. Nagy: You said the subdivision to the east has been there since 1950 and there
are no sidewalks there.
Mr. Tosdale: Yes there is, and also the new house right behind Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Nagy: For new construction, yes, but the zoning change didn't initiate that.
Mr. Tosdale: All the R-1 houses have sidewalks. Put something in writing.
Mr. McCann: The City Council will have this after us and they will be able to address
that issue.
Mr. Tosdale: You want to change the zoning for your benefit, not his, and he will be
required to put sidewalks in, and you are talking $8000. I think that is a
pretty stiff penalty for a citizen.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-7-1-12 closed.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, this change will leave lot 92B landlocked. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nagy: We are not changing the status with respect to the condition of lot 92B.
Lot 92B has already been split and part attached to lots already developed
facing Richland Avenue. Zoning change does not create lot splits, it
doesn't do away with existing lot splits, it merely changes the zoning
classification of the subject area.
Mr. LaPine: The lot that the city owns is the only parcel to be rezoned. The long lot
shown in red on the map are already attached to the houses on Richland
and now they become part of the same R-1 zoning?
16447
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
4116,
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-167-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 13, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-7-1-12
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, and Council Resolution#134-98, proposing to rezone property
located east of Stark Road between Orangelawn and Richland Avenues in
the NE 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City council that Petition 98-7-1-12 be approved
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning would place the subject
property under a classification that would be consistent with the zoning on
the properties to the east, south and west;
2. That the proposed change of zoning would provide a more
reasonable and compatible zoning classification for the subject area; and
3. That the proposed change of zoning would allow for the
development of vacant land within the subject area.
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. McCann: Whether it is RUF or R-1, there is no requirement of the city to require
the installation of sidewalks, they have talked about doing it on Hubbard
Road, this does not trigger putting in sidewalks. This is more for us to
keep our zoning map in order to what is actually there.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-8-1-17
by RD Management on behalf of Second Mount Clemens Corporation requesting
to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Levan
Road and Williams Avenue in the SW 1/4 of Section 17 from OS (Office
Services) to C-1 (Local Business).
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department in their letter of September 17 states that
they have no concerns with regards to the proposed concept. We also
have a letter from Vince Moceri of 15574 Woodside as follows: I am
16448
writing to you on behalf of several relatives and friends on the subject of
the rezoning request for property on the north side of 5 Mile between
Williams and Levan. The property is next to the Comerica Bank, is
currently zoned OS, and has been the subject of many attempts to build an
undesirable commercial building and/or a McDonalds. Our local
neighborhood civic associations have, as you are aware, been attempting
to preserve the Office zoning of that property for a long time. Residents
along Roycroft west of Levan had to put up with all kinds of problems
caused by Borman Bros. When they closed that building and moved
Farmer Jack to Newburgh and 5 Mile. The property sat vacant for years
with Bormans refusing to renovate it or lease it. Through much effort by
area residents, the Franks Nursery and Arbor Drugs Store were brought
in and except for some remaining problems they have been pretty fair
neighbors. What concerns me is that the company proposing a zoning
change seems to be running a very limited information proposal. The
company wants to build a couple of buildings there but have no tenants or
clear building and site plan to show. We cannot get answers from the
planning department because it seems as though the builder conveniently
didn't give the city enough information on the project. We see this effort
as a clear plan by the builder to beg for a zoning change to Cl then
mysteriously come back to the city saying they cannot find tenants for Cl
and ask for C2. As we all know, the C2 would allow building a restaurant
which will probably be the McDonalds that has been trying for years to
invade the area. I feel that if someone wants to request a zoning change,
then that party should be forced to submit a clear, detailed site, sign and
landscaping plan complete with the names, addresses, and phone numbers
of the tenants who want to locate there. We should not be subject to the
whims of some builder who will not truthfully admit that their proposal is
just a scam to get what they wanted-something that was already turned
down numerous times. With the need for more office space, this area can
be used well with the office zoning already in place and thus no need to
change or approve a rezoning to CI is needed. There is another letter in
petition form dated October 1, 1998 from Jeffrey Wheeler of 36517
Roycroft: In reference to petition 98-8-2-17 by Management Corporation
on behalf of Second Mount Clemens corporation to rezone the parcel of
land located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Levan Road and
Williams Avenue, I wish to voice my opposition. Due to previous
commitments, I will not be able to personally attend the Planning
Commission meeting on Tuesday October 13, 1998. Ido ask that this
letter be read to the commissioners at the meeting and entered into the
minutes. I have lived directly behind the strip mall located to the east of
this property for 13 years and it has been my experience that commercial
properties tend to be a nuisance for neighboring families. As recently as
10:30 pm on Tuesday September 29, 1998 it was necessary for me to call
the Livonia police to request their assistance in removing a parked and
idling delivery truck from behind the Franks Nursery. These truck drivers
16459
ihre Mr. Alanskas: With regard to the field check the staff made on September 29 which
revealed 8 cars that were not in running condition, 2 truck trailers, a bus, a
boat and a dump truck,did all those belong to the construction company?
Mr. Hubbard: No,there were a lot of totals there and abandoned vehicles from non-
insurance people.
Mr. Alanskas: How long were they there?
Mr. Hubbard: Usually six months and then we apply for title and then call the junk yard.
Mr. Alanskas: What I am asking is with all that equipment there all that time, and now
that you want to have a building addition approved, all of a sudden you
have taken care of it. That tells me that if you had this put up,you would
go back to your same old thing again having vehicles back there, buses
and boats and everything.
Mr. Hubbard: That bus was used as a tool shed for one of the contractors. The boat is
my own personal boat. I had no idea it didn't belong there. I have plenty
of room at my house, I can put it there. From time to time we do work on
boats.
ire Mr. Alanskas: That would be inside the building because you can't store anything back
there. You would have to get a waiver use. Also, you said you wanted to
go to 21 bays? You only have four people, why do you need so many
bays?
Mr. Hubbard: The Fire Department is looking for somewhere inside Livonia to repair
their pumpers and as you know,they are very big. We could probably
only put four in the new addition. There are six right now that are in need
of painting. Right now we are the best bidder out there. You need a lot of
building for those big vehicles.
Mr. Alanskas: How long does it take to do one of those vehicles?
Mr. Hubbard: A big pumper would take about three weeks. They deteriorate and rust
and once in a while they bang them up. Mainly they need a lot of
repainting. It takes a lot of room to do a big vehicle.
Mr. LaPine: You say you need additional space because you have these four pumpers
there. The City of Livonia is not going to have four pumpers tied up for
three weeks. It seems odd that you have 21 bays that people can work on
at any one time when you only have four employees. I don't see how four
employees can work on 21 stations.
16449
have in the past spent the entire night parked behind this commercial
business with their engines running. Even in the dead of winter with all of
the windows in the house closed, their idling engines disturb our nighttime
peace. The trash dumpsters which line the alley are almost always
overflowing allowing garbage to blow into our back yards. When they are
emptied, usually between 5:00 am and 7:00 am, more garbage flies into
our yards as well as again disturbing our early morning peace. There has
been a semi-trailer parked in the alley behind the Franks Nursery since
last spring, and it shows no sign of being moved. Every summer, Franks
Nursery stores dozens of wooden pallets in the alley. It is not unusual for
this collection of pallets to be ten feet high and forty feet long. Not only is
this an eye sore, but a few summers ago someone started the pallets on
fire in the middle of the night,placing several neighboring homes in
jeopardy from flying sparks. This letter isn't intended to target just
Franks Nursery, but rather strip malls and commercial properties in
general. There are just as many problems with the trash dumpsters and
deliveries trucks at the Arbor rug store located in the same strip mall.
These nuisances are unfortunate side effects of commercial business,
despite local ordinances controlling such activities. I am also fairly
certain that all of the above mentioned problems could have been
precluded at any time by any type of intervention from the city ordinance
division, had they had the time, or will, to do so. This strip mall was
renovated and reopened eight years ago. It has been allowed to operate
in this manner without regard to the neighboring homes, and I se no
reason to expect it will change. The last thing I want to see in my back
yard is another commercial entity with their overflowing trash dumpsters,
noisy delivery trucks, rude and vulgar truck drivers, beeping Hi-lows or
employees hanging out in the alley taking their smoke break while leering
into my back yard. Several years back the Country Homes Estates
Kingsbury Heights Civic Association worked very closely with Mayor
Bennett's office to rezone this piece of land from C-1 to OS. It was felt at
that time the OS zoning was more acceptable and compatible with our
neighborhood and I see no reason to change it. The Comerica bank
located to the west of the property in question has never caused any of the
above mentioned problems to our neighborhood I will continue to hope
that the city ordinance division will someday start to enforce the many
violations that occur at this particular strip mall, but do not feel
compelled to add to their work load by allowing the expansion of
commercial interest in my neighborhood For this reason I oppose the
rezoning of this property to C-1 and support leaving it zoned OS.
Attached to this letter are names of ten residents of Roycroft and
Woodside streets.
Phil Garcia with SSOE Inc.,the architect for the petitioner, R.D. Management: As you
are aware,this property was zoned at one time for C-1. R.D. Management
has tried to market it as O.S. property, but there hasn't been much interest
16450
in property this small for office development. The market for this
property has had a lot more interest for commercial development. There
are commercial businesses that can use a piece of property this small. A
bank or something like that would be ideal, but none of the banks are
building right now. For this reason we felt we would like to get it rezoned
to C-1 and put a retail center on it. They have had interest for it from
several retailers. They have some deals that are pending. I am not aware
of who they are, but they have the interest. At one time they did have an
interest in a medical office, but that fell through. It just appears that there
is no market for this type of development right now. The property
adjacent to it is C-1 and the property on the other side is Office Service.
On the southeast corner is a mix of C-1 and OS, as it is across the street,
so it seems like this area has both C-1 and OS. We don't feel that this
would make a significant change from what is there. This property is not
even two acres. It is smaller than the retail that is there now. It is
probably about one-third of the Frank's Nursery/Arbor Drugs shopping
center. It is approximately the same size as the Comerica site.
Mr. Hale: Do you know how long Second Mount Clemens Corp. has actually owned
this property?
Mr. Garcia: They came to us about a year ago and they had it before then. They
probably had it a couple of years before that.
Mr. Hale: Have you designed any offices with the square footage we are talking
about here, about 18,575 square feet which is proposed for a retail center?
We could conceivably have an office with that square footage,right?
Mr. Garcia: We could. We haven't done any for years as no one is building offices
right now.
Mr. Hale: I asked that question because you indicated you thought the parcel was too
small to build any kind of meaningful office space there, and I am
wondering why that is the case.
Mr. Garcia: I think that it is because right now offices have been so overbuilt in the
past five to ten years that we are not seeing much office development at
all, and we haven't done any in the last five or six years. The retail and
industrial is what has been strong.
Mr. Hale: Do you know the retail centers that they are negotiating with right now?
Mr. Garcia: No,I don't.
Mr. Hale: Any kind of study done on the need for commercial in this particular area?
16451
Mr. Garcia: We have not done anything. R.D. Management, a real estate firm, must
have done something to indicate that.
Mr. Hale: For a retail center of approximately 18,000 sq. ft., how many tenants are
you talking about?
Mr. Garcia: Two to three.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you aware that we are building a medical building at the present time
on Levan Road?
Mr. Garcia: No,I am not.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you looked at veterinary shops or a small business office? I am sure
there must be a small building that you could use as an office.
Mr. Garcia: We are basically responding to the needs of our client, which is R.D.
Management, and they are marketing the property and they are telling us
that that is their interest that they are getting from their customers out
there.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you tried contacting the Chamber of Commerce in Livonia to see if
they have any requests for office space in Livonia?
Mr. Garcia: I have not. Whether R.D. Management has or not, I don't know.
Mr. Alanskas: They might try that also.
Mr. LaPine: You realize that about ten years ago we rezoned this from commercial
back to OS because we didn't want any more commercial in that strip
along Five Mile. I understand times change and it might be more helpful
to me if I knew approximately what would go in there. Basically, if you
were going to put another video store, pizzeria, another cleaners, another
convenience store,then I wouldn't respond to that too much. If something
would go in there that I think the neighborhood would need, or something
that would not cause a lot of problems, it might make a difference to me.
At this point, we don't know what is going in there. All we are looking at
is rezoning. I understand that we would get that at the time a site plan is
submitted, but I think it would be helpful if we would know what was
going in there.
Mr. Garcia: R.D. Management has indicated to me that they are not interested in 1000,
2000 sq.ft. tenants because on something like this,that could conceivably
be nine or ten tenants. They are looking for one or two tenants to take
this.
16452
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Tom Huff, 36571 Roycroft: My wife and I have lived at this location for 32 years. I am
the unofficial spokesperson for the residents of Kingsbury Heights
Subdivision. We also sent in some letters to the Planning Department. I
had a letter,the Bunker's had a letter. We don't want the rezoning. I will
read a portion of one of our neighbor's letters to the Planning Commission
which presents an overview of our objections. This is a letter from the
Bunker's who live right next door to me. We moved to Livonia in July of
1995 because of the City's outstanding reputation. Our neighborhood is a
wonderful place to raise a family and we are very happy with the schools
and the available facilities for activities outside of school. When we
bought our home we ere concerned with the lot behind the house and went
to the city before buying to check what the property in question was zoned
for. We were pleased with the OS zoning, however we've been
disappointed with the maintenance of the property and are concerned that
this problem will continue with any future development. Our question to
the Planning Commission is what compelling reasons the city would have
to rezone this property, when the change would surely compromise the
residential property value in the immediate area. There does not seem to
be a need for another strip mall at this corner. Within a one mile radius
we have several party/convenience stores,fast food chains, dry cleaners,
hair salons and drug stores. What advantage would there be to adding
another? All recent development on this corner has been geared towards
the medical field, continuing this trend would compliment the residential
nature of the surrounding area. Conversely, a retail development would
add to the already mounting traffic from the existing strip malls on either
side of this property. Some other concerns we have regarding this zoning
change are the disruptive noises generated from delivery vehicles and
garbage trucks that would be so close to our home. In our experience, the
back of any retail business is cluttered with boxes,full dumpsters and
blowing debris, which even a brick or cement wall cannot hide. Having
our two young children playing in their own backyard,just a few feet from
foul smelling dumpsters, idling semi trucks and loitering customers is a
very disturbing thought. Unfortunately, we fell so strongly about this
rezoning that we would seriously consider relocating if it passes. This
week we were reading the Guide to the Livonia City Services and noticed
that the city's motto is "People come first in Livonia". We truly hope the
city's actions support their words and we don't have to change it to
"Developers come first in Livonia". That's the letter from the Bunkers.
There are other reasons a strip mall is a bad idea. These are detailed in
correspondence from others to the Planning Commission. To save time,
we will not list those now. With reference to the unsightly conditions at
the existing mall, I have pictures documenting this. I will submit these to
you after my presentation and ask that they be included as part of the
16453
meeting minutes. In some ways strip malls are the most undesirable
buildings that can be built bordering a residential community. Our
property values are sure to go down. For most people in our subdivision,
this is the single most important reason for not wanting the zoning change.
We do not object to this property being developed as presently zoned. In
fact, most people in the neighborhood would welcome it. We understand
that the owner and/or developer has money invested and needs to get a
return on their investment. Our objection is in what he wants to build.
We think it is very important for all concerned to understand that there are
at least 50%of the adjacent property owners that object to this rezoning.
Because of this, 75%of the City Council members will have to approve
the change before it will go into effect. This means that six out of the
seven councilmembers must vote for the petitioner. Five out of seven
votes is only 71%. Our neighborhood is united in not wanting this change.
We have 95 signatures to prove that. These have been submitted to the
Planning Commission with our letters. Even more important is the fact
that everyone who was asked signed our petition. Years ago there was a
lot of thought put into the decision to zone this property to OS. It was a
good plan then and it still is. There is no need to change it. In conclusion,
we believe that there will be only one winner if the zoning is changed to
C-1, and that's the developer. Let's develop the property as OS so that all
of the entities involved,the City, the neighbors, can be winners. We
(6, request that the Planning Commission reject the change. I want to thank
all of my friends and neighbors who have put so much time and effort into
fighting this. I would especially like to thank our neighbors who have
taken the time to be here tonight. Also,thank you commissioners for the
time and effort you spend to keep Livonia a great place to live.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on petition 98-8-1-17 closed.
Mr. Piercecchi: Since I see no evidence to justify the change back to C-1, and you
recall the stated reasons for approving the rezoning to OS by the City
Council were that the change of zoning would prevent further commercial
development along Five Mile Road in the subject area and would provide
for uses that would be more compatible to the adjacent residential uses in
the area, and would provide for a variety of office uses and services to
serve the surrounding neighborhoods.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-168-98 RESOLVED,that pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
October 13, 1998 by the City Planning commission on Petition 98-8-1-17
by RD Management on behalf of Second Mount Clemens Corporation
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road
16454
between Levan Road and Williams Avenue in the SW 1/4 of Section 17
ktie from OS to C-1,the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 98-8-1-17 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan designation of Office;
2) That this area of the City is currently well served with a variety of
commercial uses;
3) That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate a need in
this area for additional commercial uses such as are permitted by
the C-1 zoning district;
4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which
will cause additional traffic congestion in the area;
5) That the proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and
not in harmony with the adjacent uses in the area,particularly with
respect to the residential uses to the north; and
6) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which
will erode the quality of life experienced by the adjoining
residential neighborhood.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to City Council with a recommendation for denial.
Mr. Alanskas: John, can we have the Inspection Department take a look behind Frank's
Nursery?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-9-1-18
by John J. Wheeler and Janice Mayes requesting to rezone property located on the
north side of Plymouth Road between Chase Boulevard and Newburgh Road in
the SE 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
16455
Mr. Nagy: The City's Engineering Department in their letter of September 17, 1998
referencing the petition states that they have no objections to the rezoning
from an engineering standpoint. We also have a letter dated October 6,
1998 addressed to the City Planning Commission: I have comments on
this petition which concerns property adjacent to my home. The
petitioners have been building two homes adjacent to my home for the past
three years and it appears they are still in the building process. Not only
has this been a noisy, unattractive and annoying site, but we (the
neighbors) are wondering when or if they will ever be completed. As I
understand it, the petitioners will be building six (6) homes on the
petitioned property and also an extension to the road leading to the
homes. History tells us that the petitioners are known to build homes and
just leave them empty with weed build-up until the city confronts them to
either have tenants in the home or they will bulldoze it. My concerns are
that there will be a continuation of the same kind of operation at the new
site. The homes that they are building may not enhance our Hunters
Pointe sub which we take pride in because they are using their choice of
home features which are not necessarily attractive and which may
decrease the value of our homes. Also, we have small children in our
subdivision who should not be exposed to any potential safety issues while
all this construction is going on. Although they will not b3 constructing
these homes until next year, they have already defaced our properties by
having orange paint indiscriminately put on our lawns for the markings of
the utility, etc. locations. If we could be assured that a restriction on the
building time frame, the quality of the homes and safety factors are
addressed, I would not have a problem with the petition. Signed by A
Concerned Property Owner in Hunters Pointe Sub-Division. That is the
extent of our correspondence.
John Wheeler, 29245 Marvin Road, Farmington Hills, MI: I would like to clarify the
negative letter that was sent in. Those two other parcels where the homes
are being constructed are my father's homes. I do not have anything to do
with those homes. About two years ago I purchased the back parcels from
my father. As you are coming up Birch Run there are four behind the
homes he is building. I have acquired those. Also,I purchased lot 534
from Mr. Deiriggi. I also have a purchase agreement that I recently signed
with the owner of lot 533 to continue that road all the way to the public
land. What my intention is to start on the utilities and the road extension.
The utilities will be done in the next week to ten days and weather
permitting, we will pour the road shortly after that.
Mr. McCann: Are you going to sell the lots,or are you going to build?
Mr. Wheeler: I probably will sell a few of them and construct some homes myself.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you built homes before in Livonia?
16456
(tetv:1'
Mr. Wheeler: Not in Livonia, in Farmington Hills.
Mr. Alanskas: How many have you built there?
Mr. Wheeler: Five.
Mr. Alanskas: In what time span?
Mr. Wheeler: The longest I took on mine was ten months.
Mr. LaPine: You said your father is building the other two homes? For three years?
Mr. Wheeler: Yes, he is. It's probably been for a couple of years.
Mr. LaPine: Why isn't your father getting the houses done?
Mr. Wheeler: I have no idea. I have little contact with him.
Mr. LaPine: I am reluctant to approve these until I get some idea as to what is
happening. I realize you don't have any interest in them, but I just can't
believe that it takes two years to build a couple of houses. We have
enough problems with builders in this town who take forever to build
homes, and I think the neighbors have a legitimate argument. Maybe you
can talk to your dad and find out what is going on.
Mr. Wheeler: I have no control over what my father does with his property. I don't see
how that would affect mine.
Mr. LaPine: Can you tell us where in Farmington Hills you have built houses?
Mr. Wheeler: Thirteen Mile and Drake area. I also work for construction specialists in
Southfield and build commercial properties all over the country. I can
give you a list of those. I haven't built a home in Farmington Hills in
about five years.
Mr. Piercecchi: The extension here, #534, it is obvious that the home adjacent to
Plymouth Road would face Plymouth Road. The one above it would face
the Birch Run extension. The front of that house, how is it going to fit
into that scheme of things there?
Mr. Wheeler: That home would actually face Birch Run. It would face north and the
other one would face south.
Mr. Piercecchi: I assume they would be long ranch-type of homes there.
16457
Mr. Wheeler: Either ranch or colonial.
Mr. Piercecchi: And you are interested in doing the same thing to #533?
Mr. Wheeler: Correct. I am leaning towards just developing the road and selling them
off. I will probably save a couple to build on because people have been
contacting me.
Mr. LaPine: Did you take out your building permits in Farmington Hills under John J.
Wheeler?
Mr. Wheeler: Yes.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-9-1-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-169-98 RESOLVED,that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table Petition 98-9-1-18 by John J. Wheeler and Janice Mayes
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Chase Boulevard and Newburgh Road in the SE 'A of Section 30
from RUF to R-1 date uncertain.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-9-2-18
by Randall W. Hubbard requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to
an existing auto body repair shop located on the east side of Merriman Road
between Schoolcraft and Industrial Roads in the NW 'A of Section 26.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The Traffic Bureau of the Police Department indicates they have reviewed
the subject petition and they have no objection to the site plan as
submitted. The Inspection Department in their letter of September 21
referencing the subject petition indicates they have reviewed the site plan
for the subject petition and the following is noted: 1) There is no west
elevation or wall section showing construction materials. 2) Site plan
16458
does not show any barrier free parking spaces(2 van accessible spaces are
required). 3) All parking spaces are required to be double striped. 4)
Except for the front yard setback,the lot area is required to be enclosed
with a fence. 5) Storage of construction trailers and equipment should be
discontinued. Waiver use approval is required to operate a contractor"
yard. That was signed by David Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector. The
Engineering Department in their letter of September 17 has no objection to
the proposed concept, however, we cannot evaluate the proposal without a
site plan which shows topographic elevation and drainage patterns. That
is signed by John Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our
correspondence.
Randall Hubbard, 13580 Merriman Road, Livonia: My wife and I are the owners of
Randy's collision. We have been doing business in Livonia for about ten
years and we have been there for about five. We cleaned it up
substantially when we bought the property. We just went back and
cleaned it up again. We do all the Livonia police cars. We do all the fire
department vehicles. We have a need for a lot more room because they
want us to do their pumpers also which are very, very big vehicles. That's
the main reason we need to do this. About the west elevation, we have
been in touch with Mr. Nagy and decided to hold off on the offices in
front, which are still in the plans, but the plans weren't complete enough
to submit them to you for consideration. That will be like a phase 2 which
we will come back for at a later time with the correct blueprints. Mr.
Nagy also said they really didn't agree with the parking lot that is
proposed on the site plan up front. We discussed what they felt would be
better and we agree. Rather than take out all the nice landscaping up front,
which is probably one of the prettier ones around, what we are asking to
do is move the parking lot back on the rear side of the property which
would be back along the side rather than up front. The other item on that
list as far as the parking spaces, that is not a problem. We have plenty of
property for parking. The whole back yard has been cleared out from the
construction people as of the past week.
Mr. McCann: Have you talked to your architect about changing your plans with regard
to parking in the rear and with regard to fencing and the number of
parking spaces? You have more than four employees working there,
correct?
Mr. Hubbard: Right. There are four right now not including my wife and I. There's a
very strong possibility there will be a couple more. Whatever we need we
have no problem doing.
Mr. McCann: But you haven't presented any new plans to show the parking in the rear?
Mr. Hubbard: No, sir.
16460
Mr. Hubbard: There is a lot of down time while you are waiting on parts, waiting for
insurance adjusters. One body man works on four or five cars each. A
painter works on four or five vehicles at one time. It is standard for a
body shop to need more stalls.
Mr. LaPine: You have some cars that you said were totaled. When a car is towed into
your establishment,they send out an adjuster and the adjuster says that
they will total this car. Why can't that car be signed over to you at that
time? Why does it have to sit there for six months?
Mr. Hubbard: It has to sit for a period of 60-90 days before you can even legally apply
for title.
Mr. McCann: Sometimes the insurance company says it is not worth picking up. Instead
of spending $250 to have it towed out of there, sometimes they will just
leave it there for him to dispose of.
Mr. LaPine: If they come in and say they will not repair the vehicle,the owner of that
vehicle just has to sign over the title.
Mr. McCann: If you have an owner. It's the insurance company's car because they have
paid it off. If a person brings it in for repair and they can't afford the
repair costs, and he can't find the owner, he can't dispose of it for a period
of time. My concern is that there is no waiver use at this time for any
outdoor storage. You have a nice greenbelt. What I think you need to do
is go to the ZBA if you are going to have vehicles stored, find an area
where the ZBA finds it appropriate and ask for a waiver to store some
outdoor vehicles.
Al Nowak: I don't think it is necessary that he go to the ZBA. That could be part of
our waiver use approval.
Mr. McCann: We don't have site plans or anything else to deal with tonight as far as the
changes we are requesting.
Mr. LaPine: John, I notice in our notes that you indicated that with respect to the site
lying east of the existing fence, he has indicated that he wishes to leave
this area with a gravel surface except for the paved apron adjacent to the
new addition. So he is not going to pave all his parking area?
Mr. Nagy: That was the initial proposal. As you heard tonight,he is re-evaluating
that now. He is supportive of the idea to remove the full expansion of the
parking in the front yard, move it around to the side and the rear.
Mr. LaPine: I don't see how we can approve this tonight if we don't have a site plan.
16461
Mr. McCann: I agree with you. There is a lot of stuff that has to be worked out. Is there
(IL any one in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition?
(There was no one). What is the normal amount of space you need for
customers?
Mr. Hubbard: You would need roughly about 8 during the course of a day, depending on
how many vehicles are dropped off. Once they are dropped off, we move
them to the back to make room up front. Another reason for this addition
is so that we don't have to keep wrecked cars outside. We want to start
working on them. We don't like them outside either because then they are
not being worked on.
Mr. Alanskas: I have no problems with you wanting to expand your facility. The
problem I have is that I don't want the back of your property to turn into a
junkyard like it has been. I can see where you say you have to keep cars
there to work on, but I am talking about the ones you are not going to be
working on,the ones you are going to dispose of. I have been to a lot of
junk shops in the city, it is part of my business, and they don't have the
problems you have in your backyard.
Mr. Hubbard: That will not happen again. It didn't turn out the way it was supposed to.
It took a long time to get them evicted.
Mr. Alanskas: I am talking about your passenger cars that you are taking too long to
dispose of. Somehow you have to change the process where you can
dispose of them quicker.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-9-2-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-170-98 RESOLVED,that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table Petition 98-9-2-18 by Randall W. Hubbard requesting waiver use
approval to construct an addition to an existing auto body repair shop
located on the east side of Merriman Road between Schoolcraft and
Industrial Roads in the NW 1/4 of Section 26 to date uncertain.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
16462
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-9-2-19
by James L. Zanotti requesting waiver use approval to operate a pita sandwich
shop with customer seating within an existing building (L.A. Plaza) located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Wayne and Levan Roads in the NE 1/4 of
Section 32.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department in their letter of September 17 indicates they
have no objection to the proposal. The Traffic Division similarly in their
letter of September 16 indicates that they have no concerns or objections
with respect to traffic safety matters. The Inspection Department in their
letter of September 21 indicates that the site plan has been reviewed and
the following is noted: 1) The parking lot is in need of minor repair for a
chuck hole. 2) The existing and proposed restrooms do not meet the
Michigan Barrier Free requirements. 3) There is a dumpster that is not
enclosed on the southwest corner of the lot. That is signed by David
Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector. That is the extent of our
correspondence.
James Zanotti, 505 S. Dumfries St., Detroit and Frank Zanotti, 3359 Riverside, Canton,
(60 Michigan: We plan to put an Original Pita Sub Shop which is part of a
franchise. We already own one on Ford Road in Canton Center and we
are going to put a franchise in this unit with your approval to sell pita
sandwiches, health food, 97% fat free, and there is no cooking. It is a cold
sandwich shop.
Mr. Alanskas: The franchise of pita, do they give you an area where they would not put
up another pita shop?
Mr. Zanotti; Yes, we basically have an infringement clause in all of our contracts with
them. We purchased the franchise and we actually have a seven mile
radius that we own. They cannot put up another competitive franchise in
that area.
Mr. Alanskas: There is a pita directly across the street from you, not even a mile down on
the north side of the street.
Mr. Zanotti: There is a Mr. Pita on Ann Arbor Road and Main Street.
Mr. Alanskas: There is also one on Plymouth Road.
Mr. Zanotti: We welcome the competition.
Mr. Alanskas: You just said there is a seven mile radius.
16463
ittw,I
Mr. Zanotti: We are not Mr. Pita. We are called the Original Pita Sub Shop.
Mr. Hale: I think I know the owners of this franchise. I became aware that some of
these franchises had to be taken back by the owners because of
difficulties, problems, and it sounds like you have another one that you
have had for some time in Canton. That one is not being taken back by
the owners, is it?
Mr. Zanotti: I think you have some false information because the franchise that we
bought from only has four stores. Ours is the fourth. Actually we will
have as many stores as the franchise owner. It is a relatively new
franchise, founded in 1986. He has one store and another store, and we
have the third one in Canton. This will be the fourth. I think you may be
confusing this with Mr. Pita, but this is a totally different franchise.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-9-2-19 closed.
Mr. Piercecchi: There are currently five empty sites in that plaza, and I think it is
wonderful that we will be able to fill one.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-171-98 RESOLVED,that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 13, 1998 on Petition 98-9-2-19 by
James L. Zanotti requesting waiver use approval to operate a pita
sandwich shop with customer seating within an existing building (L.A.
Plaza) located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Wayne and
Levan Roads in the NE '/4 of Section 32,the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-9-2-19 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no more than
56 seats;
2) That the site and building deficiencies which are noted in a letter
dated September 21, 1998 from the Inspection Department shall be
taken care of prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 190.6 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
16464
0
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Hale: I know that you indicated that the owner of the building has been made
aware of some of the problems outlined in the inspection report, but prior
to your even getting a Certificate of Occupancy, you will have to make
sure that all of these deficiencies are taken care of.
Mr. Zanotti: We are as concerned about that as you are, and since we are paying rent,
we have a little leverage. They are very nice people so I don't think we
• are going to have a problem at all.
(801
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-9-2-20
by Buca di Beppo requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service
restaurant on property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between the I-
275 Expressway and Fox Drive in the SW 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Division in their letter of September 28 indicates that the
Engineering Division has no concerns with regards to the proposed
concept. However,the storm discharge to State of Michigan property
must be approved by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The
Fire Marshal in his letter of September 25 indicates that they have
reviewed the site plan as submitted and fire lane "no parking signs"will
be fixed to the gate at each end of emergency access drive located at the
NE corner of the complex. The Bureau of Inspection in their letter of
September 22 indicates that signage was not reviewed as part of this
petition. The ground sign appears at a deficient setback and is shown with
exposed neon. 2) The west property line abuts a R-5 zoned district and
would require a protective wall or an approved greenbelt. 3) No
landscape plan was submitted. 4) There is no wall section depicting the
type of construction or materials to be used. 5) Restaurants require two
means of ingress and egress. The two means of ingress and egress are
16465
tow provided but only one is located on the subject parcel. 6) Thirteen of the
required parking spaces are located east of the subject parcel. This
arrangement will require a legal instrument to give third parties notice that
the property is committed to parking facilities for this project. 7) All
parking spaces are required to be hard surfaced and double striped. That is
signed by David Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector. That is the extent of
our correspondence.
Bill Donnan, ArpeefDonnan, 36937 Schoolcraft, Livonia: We are the engineering
company that prepared the site plan for this waiver. Here tonight is a
representative from Buca di Beppo and one from the Stacey Company you
can address any questions you have to.
Lane Schmiesing, Buca di Beppo, Minneapolis, MN: (displayed front, side and rear
elevations) We had submitted some renderings earlier and had some
discussions about some modifications that should be made to the building.
There were some questions about some of the materials that would
actually be used in the building. This material board shows color samples,
awning colors and materials that would be used, cultured stone rock that
would be used on the thin wall portion of the building. This is a fascia
sample of a brick to show color and texture. It would be actual brick that
would be used for the majority of the front and the east side of the
elevation. The majority would be brick with some accent colors and
dryvit.
Mr. LaPine: Is all that red area dryvit?
Mr. Schmiesing: That is the rear elevation facing north and you see brick wainscot and
brick above and on one of the sides.
Mr. LaPine: So there is basically a lot of brick on everything except the rear elevation.
Mr. Schmiesing: Correct.
Mr. McCann: Is there any type of greenbelt that will hide it? Where is the loading dock?
Mr. Schmiesing: Actually, there is no loading dock. The trash receptacle is brick
and surrounded by landscaping. The main entry to the kitchen of the
restaurant is in the back.
Mr. Alanskas: As I understand it,this restaurant would not be open for lunches, correct?
Mr. Schmiesing: Correct, dinner only.
Mr. Alanskas: Two settings for dinner only?
16466
te Mr. Schmiesing: Depending on the day of the week, sometimes we will set three. It
is a continuous use restaurant.
Mr. Alanskas: I like your colors and concept, but there are so many things we don't know
yet about the site plan and landscape plan. We have to address the ingress
and egress; you only have one showing on Six Mile.
Mr. Schmiesing: There are two ingress and egress.
Mr. Alanskas: The one is for the child day care on an easement. How would they get
there?
Mr. Schmiesing: They go across the front.
Mr. Alanskas: What would your hours be?
Mr. Schmiesing: On the weekends we open about 4:30 and close at 11:30. There
will only be kitchen people there later.
Mr. LaPine: During the week are you open the same times?
Mr. Schmiesing: During the week it is 5:30 to 10:30.
Mr. Piercecchi: The dumpster is adjacent to Fox Avenue. Was there an advantage
to putting it there rather than in back where it could be screened better for
the people going down Fox Avenue?
Mr. Schmiesing: Fox Drive is more than 40' from where the dumpster will be. It
will be well hidden with landscaping around it. It is a very easy access
here.
Mr. Alanskas: On the existing buildings you have now, do you have any that are all
brick?
Mr. Schmiesing: The only building I can think of that is all brick is one where the
restaurant is in the basement of an apartment building.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you looking for a lot of signage on this building?
Loretta Reeves, Stacey Company, 3253 Mountain View, Lenore City, Tennessee: You
have a copy of the sign package in front of you. Our sign package meets
the city requirements.
Mr.Nagy: When Mr. Woodcox wrote his report, at that time there was not a sign
package. Subsequent to that, a written report from Mr. Woodcox indicates
that the Inspection Department has fully evaluated the signage and it
16467
meets all city ordinances. When the landscape plan first came to us, it was
not a fully detailed plan. A new landscape plan has been submitted, and
that too meets and exceeds our requirements.
Mr. LaPine: So tonight we have a complete package. We have a sign package that
meets all city ordinances. We have a landscape plan that meets all city
requirements, and we have a building that so far hasn't had anything
negative.
Mr. Nagy: The brick that has been shown tonight is over and above what you had
looked at at the study meeting. With regard to your comments at that
meeting for additional brick, we have contacted the petitioner,they have
made those changes and their illustrated rendering tonight reflects
compliance with your wishes.
Mr. McCann: My only concern is the wainscot of brick along the back side of 3'. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nagy: It is 4' high and the purpose of that is that it backs up against the senior
facility, not the hotel.
Mr. McCann: I am concerned that because of vandalism, is 4' enough?
Mr. Nagy: I wouldn't have any objection to another 2', but this appears to be
adequate.
Mr. McCann: My concern is that dryvit doesn't last forever, brick does. We would like
it to look good. We would like to keep it out of reach when kids come by.
Would you have any objection to going to 6' on the wainscot?
Mr. LaPine: When we had our informal discussion, it was my understanding that this
would be the first building you would be doing as a freestanding building.
Mr. Schmiesing: That's correct.
Mr. LaPine: On the landscape plan, do I understand you have some statues?
Mr. Schmiesing: Yes, there are some statues in the front of the building. These are
designed to sit in front of the building. It is a concrete statue,
approximately 5' to 6'.
Mr. LaPine: I am curious about this one sign. Is it neon?
Mr. Schmiesing: That sign is designed to be a combination of neon and white bulbs
in the neon. It does not have any animation to it.
16468
Mr. Nagy: The wall issue backs up to Fox Drive. There is a 40' strip there that is
kind of a no-man's land and the property owner has made a concerted
effort to try and acquire that property because it is of little value other than
to this site. It could then be rezoned to a commercial classification. In its
present condition, it serves as an adequate screen and buffer. There is
substantial tree growth on there, so putting up a wall there is pretty
redundant. It serves as a greenbelt. Because of the setback of that
building, the off street parking that is in front of that, we think it is a
reasonable request to have the wall waived. That's why in the staff
recommendations it is subject to waiving of the wall by the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
Mr. LaPine: I assume you are going to need a liquor license at this location. I don't
think there are any liquor licenses available in this city, so how are we
going to handle this?
Mr. Nagy: There is one in escrow they are looking at.
Ms. Reeves: That is correct. We hired an attorney who is handling that. We are
investigating the one that is in escrow.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-9-2-20 closed.
Mr. McCann: John, the only issue we have concerns about is the wall and you
recommend they go to the ZBA for a waiver use. We can approve it
subject to the waiver use?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Piercecchi; Would it mess up your plans if we tabled it for two weeks? I
would feel more comfortable with that.
Ms. Reeves: Obviously we want you to be comfortable with the project, but we are
trying to move as quickly as we can based on the fact that winter is
coming and we would like to get this site graded at least and have the pad
ready for construction so that we can begin doing that right away.
Mr. Piercecchi: We like more brick. We know it is more durable, but we don't
want to hold you up.
Mr. Schmiesing: I flew in from Minneapolis.
Ms. Reeves: I flew in from Tennessee.
Mr. Piercecchi: Can we have more brick in the back?
16469
Ms. Reeves: Yes, you can have more brick in the back.
Mr. Hale: My concern is that we are making a motion to approve certain plans that
are not in existence yet, so how can we approve them?
Mr. Nagy: We have received a copy of the amended plan. We can make the 6' brick
a condition of the resolution.
Mr. Hale: That is fine with me.
Mr. McCann: We can put a note on the landscape plan for a sprinkler system.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-172-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 13, 1998 on Petition 98-9-2-20 by
Buca di Beppo requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service
restaurant on property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between
the I-275 Expressway and Fox Drive in the SW 'A of Section 7, the
Planning commission does hereby recommend to the City council that
Petition 98-9-2-20 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of 2 of Job No. 98072 prepared by
Arpee/Donnan, Inc., with a revision date of September 23, 1998, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan of Job No. 98072 prepared by Arpee/Donnan,
Inc. with a revision date of October 5, 1998, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3. That the maximum number of customer seats to be provided is 246
seats;
4. That the Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet A6.1 prepared by Shea
Architects, Inc. dated October 9, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except that the brick wainscot shown on a portion of the
east, north and west elevations of the building shall be 6 feet in height
above grade level(rather than 4 feet as shown on the plan);
5. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face
4 inch brick, no exceptions;
6. That screening for roof top mechanical units shall be provided as
shown on the Roof Plan marked Sheet L1.1 prepared by Shea
16470
Architects, Inc., dated September 16, 1998 and shall consist of 5 foot
high parapet walls and 5 foot high screen walls that will enclose and
conceal these units;
7. That the wall signage shown on the Wall Sign Plan marked Sheet 1 of
2 of Job No. 98948 prepared by Federal Sign Corporation, with a
revision date of September 25, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
8. That the ground signage shown on the Ground Sign Plan marked sheet
2 of 2 of Job No. 98948 prepared by Federal Sign Corporation, dated
September 22, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
9. That all signage for this restaurant shall not be illuminated beyond one
hour after closing;
10. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval; and
11. That the elimination of the required protective wall along the westerly
property line is subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals granting a
waiver of the wall requirement.
For the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. McCann: This concludes the public hearing items of the agenda. We will now
proceed with the miscellaneous site plans of our agenda. Members of the
audience may speak for or against these items.
16471
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Collins Signs, on behalf of AmeriSuites, requesting approval for
signage for the hotel located at 19300 Haggerty Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This is the hotel that is located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Seven and Eight Mile Road, part of the Pentagon Entertainment Campus.
What they are proposing is three wall signs. They are only allowed one
wall sign, so they are in excess of what they are allowed. Therefore they
had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to being presented to the
Planning Commission. They have done that and what is being presented
to you tonight is what had been approved by the Zoning Board. This
building allows one wall sign not to exceed 204 sq. ft. They are
proposing three wall signs for a total of 352 sq. ft. One on the west
elevation, which would be the main entrance of the hotel, would be 156
sq. ft. and would have AmeriSuites with the "A". The one on the south
elevation, which would be in the direction of Seven Mile, and have just
AmeriSuites would have 98 sq. ft. The one on the north elevation which
faces towards the campus would be 98 sq. ft. This sign was not allowed
by the Zoning Board. They understand that and they will take it off.
Scott Lyman, Collins Signs: I am representing Prime Hospitality, the owners of
AmeriSuites Hotel. On December 2, 1997,I came to appeal to the Zoning
Board of Appeals asking for a variance for the signs mentioned. On
December 8, 1997,the ZBA approved the sign request with several
modifications. The front or west elevation was fme. The two side
elevations they asked to have the"A"removed to reduce the total square
footage and that was approved. We are here tonight to get Planning
Commission approval and then City Council approval to get the signs
installed. The hotel should be opening about one month from now. We
have banners that are installed on the hotel that actually replicate the signs
that would be installed. That was done for your benefit, as well as the
hotel's so that you could get an aspect of what the signs would look like
once they are installed as far as the size of them, and the viewing of them
from all angles.
Mr. Piercecchi: What criteria do you use on a 6 story building to determine the
optimum signage?
Mr. Lyman: It is based on a combination of several things. One, the amount of stories
of the hotel and what kind of viewing distance that would have from the
distance of a traveling customer. This is 6 stories, I believe the signs are
about 70' from the ground. Based on that, using a geometric shape
coming down at an angle, based on that distance, the height is determined
to get the maximum viewing ability. Typically a 4' "A"can be seen
anywhere from 1200' to 1800' away from the building as far as readable
copy. There are several factors: the road network out there and typically
16472
as the building gets higher, you are also losing that distance straight up for
a person to see. It is typical that a higher building will have bigger letters.
This 6 story prototype which is what they typically build was designed
specifically for the 6'5" logo and 4' copy. It fits what they call the dog
house. Businesses that typically cater to the traveler who arrive late at
night are not familiar to the location and the letters have good visibility
from all three roads that come in. As you get off of I-275 traveling north,
as soon as you get off the off ramp, you can see those signs and that
allows the customer to get to this hotel without any problems.
Mr. Piercecchi: You also have a ground sign, correct?
Mr. Lyman: Correct. It is 30 sq. ft. and in compliance with the city code.
Mr. McCann: You got approved December 2, 1997. We weren't that slow in getting to
you, were we?
Mr. Lyman: No, what happened was when my sub, Mr. John Carol of Carol
Installations, applied for the permits about one month ago to install the
signs, they were notified by Mr. Miller that we had to apply to the Planing
Commission in order to get them.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the petition closed.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it
was
#10-173-98 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Collins Signs, on
behalf of AmeriSuites, requesting approval for the hotel located at 19300
Haggerty Road in the SW '/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Collins Signs, as received by
the Planning Commission on September 22, 1998, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the
signage for the north and south elevations shall only read
"AmeriSuites"and not include the graphic "A";
2) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
16473
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-10-8-31
by Jerry R. Brady, Sr.,on behalf of Arbor Drugs,requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal
to construct a commercial building on property located at 33400 Six Mile Road in
the SE 1/4 of Section 9.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the northwest corner of Six Mile and
Farmington. There is a Mobil gas station on the corner. It was formerly
occupied by a Comerica Bank. They are planning on demolishing the
existing structure on the site and constructing a 11,437 sq. ft. drugstore.
Access to the site would be two drives off of Six Mile Road and one drive
off of Farmington. The main parking lot would be towards Farmington.
The required parking for a drug store of this size is 61 parking spaces.
The site shows 82, so they exceed the parking requirement. They are
required to have 15%of site landscaping and they show 21%. It is around
the edge of the site, around the Mobil gas station and also the north
property line and around the building. This would be a typical Arbor
Drugs where you have brick on all four sides and the dryvit type of system
over the entrance and the drive-thru window.
Mr. Nagy; the Engineering Division indicates they have no engineering problems.
The Traffic Bureau of the Police Department indicates that they have no
objections to the site plan as submitted.
Jerry Brady, 7247 Blue Water Drive, Clarkston, Michigan: This is a reutilization of a
commercial space. Banks are getting more electronic and drug stores are
trying to get a little more consumer friendly. We are trying to save
everything there—landscape, driveways.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is going to happen to the store in that strip mall on
Farmington?
Mr. Brady: Most of the drug store chains are trying to get out of strip centers and into
corner locations where they can serve the public better and trying to own
their own stores rather than lease. They will probably vacate that.
Mr. Piercecchi: I wondered if you are aware of any one coming in to replace that.
We hate empty stores.
Mr. Brady: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: I can see the advantage of being on a corner, have you made any
attempt to buy that gas station?
Mr. Brady: Yes, it is a very small pad that we have. We are still trying to negotiate
for that.
16474
Mr. Piercecchi: So if you get the corner, you would change it to the corner?
Mr. McCann: You are saying you would demolish the gas station and turn it into parking
with a greenbelt.
Mr. Brady: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you know how many square feet the other Arbor Drugs has now?
Mr. Brady: I believe it is about 10,300 sq. ft.
Mr. Alanskas: So you are only going to gain about 1000 sq.ft.
Mr. Brady: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: That's mainly because you want to have a drive-thru and better exposure.
Mr. Brady: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: How many Arbor Drugs do you have in the City at the present time?
Mr. Brady: Four,I think.
Mr. Alanskas: Does Arbor Drugs ever think they are getting to a saturation point of drug
stores, not only Arbors but Walgreen's and the others?
Mr. Brady: I can't speak for the others, but we try and stay at least at a 2 mile radius.
Mr. Alanskas: If you could, you would put another store another two miles away?
Mr. Brady: It depends on geographic, demographics, etc.
Mr. LaPine: The main reason all these drug stores are moving out of the centers on
their own parcels is because they want to own their own building and for
the drive-thru pickup. Is that correct?
Mr. Brady: Yes, and additionally because everyone is in the pharmacy business;
Kroger, Farmer Jack, etc.
Mr. LaPine: It has always been my belief that one of the reasons drug stores have
survived is not only on prescription drugs, but most people take their
prescriptions in and leave there with something else because while they
are waiting to have their prescriptions filled,they are walking around and
they purchase other items. By people coming in and just picking up
prescriptions, aren't you defeating your own purpose?
16475
Mr. Brady: It is just a convenience for women with small children and emergencies
and people who are handicapped and can't get out of their car.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have any percentage of people who actually use the drive-thru?
Mr. Brady: No. It is a new concept.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared Petition 98-10-8-31 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was
#10-174-98 RESOLVED that,the City Planning commission does hereby recommend
to the City council that Petition 98-10-8-31 by Jerry R. Brady, Sr.,on
behalf of Arbor Drugs, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a commercial building on property located at 33400 Six Mile
Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 9 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan prepared by Brady & Company, as received by the
Planning Commission on September 10, 1998, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan prepared by Brady & Company, as received
by the Planning Commission on October 6, 1998, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan prepared by Brady&
Company, as received by the Planning Commission on September 10,
1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face
4 inch brick, no exceptions;
7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out
of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the
16476
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all
times;
8. That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties
and shall not exceed 20 feet in height;
9. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with
this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Hale, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas, Piercecchi
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: I did not know until this evening how big the existing drug store was, and
in my mind to go from a 10,000 sq.ft. building to an 11,000 sq. ft.
building, I don't think it is to better serve the citizens of Livonia. It is to
better serve Arbor Drugs. Therefore, I could not support this petition.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-10-8-32
by Livonia Chrysler-Plymouth Jeep, Inc. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a parking lot on property located at 30495 Plymouth
Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between Middlebelt and
Milburn Avenue. Livonia Chrysler-Plymouth Jeep is requesting approval
to construct a parking lot on this property which is located between the
Midas Muffler Shop and Ventura's office building. This dealership is
located across Milburn Avenue on the west side. Access to the new
parking lot would be off of Milburn Avenue and would coincide with the
drive of the dealership. They show 39% landscaping. They are required
to have 15% so they exceed the landscape requirements. Also since the
Study Meeting, we have had a letter from the Inspection Department
which stated that per the ordinance they are not allowed to park vehicles
within 20' of the property line which is adjacent to the roadway. The
petitioner has revised his plans and any parking spaces are now 20' from
each roadway.
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Division indicates in their letter of October 8 that they
have reviewed the petition provided and it is acceptable. They have no
16477
other comments. The Traffic Bureau indicates in their letter of October 6
that they have no objection to the site plan as submitted. Scott has already
commented with regard to the Inspection Department's letter regarding the
double stripping of the parking spaces, and there is a restriction of not
parking within 20' of the front or side lot lines.
Dave McDonald, 2010 E. Commerce, Milford, Michigan: I am vice president and
general manager of Livonia Chrysler-Plymouth. The only use we are
asking for is for our employees to have a place to park. In April of this
year, Chrysler's Project 2000 is to combine and not have any free standing
Chrysler dealerships or Jeep dealerships. They want them combined,
Chrysler-Jeep. It is a mixed blessing for us. The Jeep franchise we were
able to get, but with that comes more product, more customers, more
employees and we are landlocked. Milburn is on one side of us. The
other side is an appliance store and we are on just short of three acres, so
we acquired the property on the other side of Milburn, which is the other
side of Mr. Ventura's property, for the parking. As stated, 39%of it is a
greenbelt. We made our plans to have the same type of landscaping that
Archie's Restaurant has done. There is already an existing back wall
because of the residential behind it, so we made the same type of
landscaping and just added a few trees and shrubs to look like a
continuous parking lot with no fences or signage.
Mr. Alanskas: How many employees do you have?
Mr. McDonald: Eighty.
Mr. Alanskas: How many parking spots do you have for the new employee parking?
Mr. McDonald: Eighty-nine.
Mr. Alanskas: Will you have any new vehicles parked there?
Mr. McDonald: No. It will be strictly for employees only.
Mr. Alanskas: John, will that be irrigated?
Mr. Nagy: We will make that a condition.
Mr. LaPine: John, this is the area where at one time we were trying to get the road to
go through and this property was involved in that. If he puts this in, do we
have some contract with them that if the road does go through some day
we will still have the right to take that parcel?
Mr. Nagy: We have that designated in the Thoroughfare Plan. He is aware of that
encumbrance on the property.
16478
Mr. LaPine: Mr. McDonald, you understand that?
Mr. McDonald: Yes. We don't have a contract, but it is our understanding that we
would work with the city if that ever happens.
Mr. LaPine: That will open up some parking spaces at your dealership.
Mr. McDonald: It is a serious problem. At key times when we open up our
dealership in the evening, to get in and fmd a parking spot, it is road rage
in a parking lot.
Mr. Hale: Have you looked at other possibilities for parking? When I went and
looked at the site, I noticed that to the south of Mr. Ventura's building
there is a vacant area.
Mr. McDonald: That is our property. It looks like a hockey stick. It will go all the
way around and continue around Mr. Ventura's two buildings. It is only
82' of frontage.
Mr. Piercecchi: I wondered if there would be a better use for that site, but
apparently the best use is to keep you in business.
Peter Ventura, 18517 Mayfield, Livonia: I represent the owner of the adjacent property,
my father. We have no objection to this plan, but we do have one question
with regard to the site plan. Do I read this correctly when I look here and
see a greenbelt here at the lot line? (yes) We are the owners of a 10'
easement along this lot line for the length of my father's property. We
would like to see this line moved in 10' to have this easement still
accessible and usable to the corner parcel.
Mr. McCann: Your concern is lighting and landscaping?
Mr. Ventura: Yes. There is a 10' easement along here for parking and through vehicular
traffic. If it were moved east 10' then it would not be accessible.
Mr. McCann: You are saying you have a 10' road easement?
Mr. Ventura: Yes.
Mr. McCann: That is a legal issue that would be decided between you and Mr.
McDonald. If there is a legal easement, I don't think you can build on it.
The question is, do we hold this up until you two work it out,or do we go
on with it.
16479
Mr. Ventura: We have no desire to impede the progress for Mr. McDonald, but we
would simply like to see a site plan approved that recognizes the existence
of the easement.
Mr. McCann: He can't build pursuant to a site plan because you have a legal easement,
but you can work out some kind of legal document recognizing the
easement and allowing him to build the parking in the meantime until you
need the easement,that is something you can work on. There is 10' to the
east he could move, but he would lose the greenbelt between him and
Archie's.
Mr. Nagy: In order to get the double row as it is laid out, he would have to shift the
easement and then the greenbelt would be lost.
Mr. Ventura: If you were to approve the site plan this evening subject to a satisfactory
resolution of the issue of the easement between us and the Chrysler
dealership, we would have no objection to that.
Mr. McCann: We could live with that. A site plan is fine if you have to come back and
amend it because of the easement.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman,
declared Petition 98-10-8-32 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Lapin and unanimously
approved, it was:
#10-175-98 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-10-8-32 by Livonia Chrysler-
Plymouth Jeep, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
parking lot on property located at 30495 Plymouth Road in the NW 1/4 of
Section 35 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 prepared by Livonia Chrysler
Plymouth, as received by the Planning Commission on October 12,
1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet C-2 prepared by Livonia
Chrysler Plymouth, as received by the Planning Commission on
October 12, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
16480
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That overnight parking of vehicles on this site shall be prohibited;
6. That no signage is approved with this petition. All such signage shall
be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to City Council.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, let's assume that Mr. Ventura and Mr. McDonald can't work
out their differences. He could just move that and he wouldn't have that
landscaping along that property, but he would still have the 15%that is
required in the ordinance.
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Application for
Greenbelt Review and Approval by Kenneth Mydlowski requesting approval to
substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the
zoning ordinance for the business located at 31215 Five Mile Road in the NW '/o
of Section 23.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Five Mile between Merriman
and Bainbridge Avenue. They are requesting to substitute a greenbelt in
lieu of a protective wall which is required between a commercial property
and a residential zoned property. They are requesting that the existing
vegetation along the south property line be accepted as an appropriate
greenbelt. This area consists of about 200' with numerous trees and thick
underbrush.
Ken Mydlowski, 11996 Deercreek Circle, Plymouth, Michigan: This is an application
for the continued greenbelt use which is already in effect at the present
property.
Mr. Alanskas: That picture you supplied us with is what I call a real greenbelt.
Mr. LaPine: John, let's assume ten years from now he sells his property and someone
else takes it over, once we waive this is that gone forever?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, but it is regulated in the event that this owner, or any owner, wants to
alter the site,they would have to go through the site plan approval process.
They would either have to amend the plan or submit a new one.
16481
There was no one wishing to speak for or against this petition and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the petition closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-176-98 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Application for Greenbelt Review and Approval by Kenneth Mydlowski
requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as
outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for the business located
at 31215 Five Mile Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 23 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the south property line, as
shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on
September 15, 1998, shall be substituted for the protective wall
required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That this area shall stay in its natural state and any changes to this area
shall require Planning Commission and City Council review and
approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Subdivision
Landscape Plan and Entrance Marker for the Cross Winds Estates Subdivision
proposed to be located on the west side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile
Road and Norfolk Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This subdivision is located on the west side of Farmington between Seven
Mile and Norfolk Avenue. They are requesting approval of an entrance
marker and landscaping. The landscaping they show on the site plan
would be in the cul-de-sac area, and also around the sign. For signage,
they are allowed one entrance marker at 20 sq. ft. and they are proposing
one at 7 sq. ft.
There was no one wishing to speak for or against this item, and Mr. McCann, Chairman,
declared the petition closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-177-98 RESOLVED,that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the Entrance Marker and Landscape Plan in
connection with Cross Winds Estates Subdivision proposed to be located
16482
on the west side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and
Norfolk Avenue in the NE '/4 of Section 4 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Landscape and Entrance Marker Plan as received by the
Planning Commission on September 28, 1998 is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That the brick used in the construction of the sign shall be full face 4"
brick, no exceptions;
3. That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance
by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient setback and any
conditions related thereto.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the last item on the agenda is Application for
Greenbelt Review and Approval by David A. Sims, P.C.,on behalf of Thomas'
Family Dining, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective
wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for the business located
at 33971 Plymouth Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Miller: This is for Thomas' Restaurant which is located on the south side of
Plymouth between Stark and Farmington Roads. They are requesting to
substitute a greenbelt in lieu of a protective wall which is required
between commercial zoned property and residential zoned property. They
have an existing greenbelt behind in the south property line which consists
of mature trees and thick undergrowth. It is about 200' deep.
Mr. Nagy: The petitioner has indicated that he would like to expedite the proposal
because of his closing, and also asks your indulgence in waiving the seven
day requirement so that he can have his document for closing on the 19th
of October.
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition and Mr.
McCann, Chairman, declared the petition closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-178-98 RESOLVED,that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Application for Greenbelt Review and Approval by David A. Sims, P.C.,
on behalf of Thomas' Family Dining, requesting approval to substitute a
greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning
16483
ordinance for the business located at 33971 Plymouth Road in the NE 1/4 of
Section 33 for the following reasons:
1. That the natural landscape greenbelt along the south property line as
shown on the plan and received by the Planning Commission on
October 5, 1998 shall be substituted for the protective wall as required
by Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance:
2. That this area shall stay in its natural state and any changes to this area
shall be required by the City Planning Commission and the City
Council for review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: Knowing Mr. Tom Mack, the owner of Thomas' Family Dining, he has
been a wonderful person for supporting the city. He has a wonderful
business there, and I wish him well.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it
was
#10-179-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with the Application for Greenbelt Review and Approval by
David A. Sims, P.C. on behalf of Thomas' Family dining requesting
approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in
Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for the business located at 33971
Plymouth Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 33
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted,the 773rd Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on October 13, 1998 was adjourned at 10:00 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
s C. McCann, Chairman
/du