HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-04-1520267
MINUTES OF THE 86P PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 15, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 863d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William LaPine John Walsh
Carol Smiley
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Bill
Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Marge Roney, Secretary, were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
Mayor Kirksey presented H J Shane with a 35 -year service recognition pin for his
combined 30 years of service with the Planning Department and 5 years of
service on the Planning Commission.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2003-01-01-06 IAFRATE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
01-01-06, submitted by Ron G. Myers, on behalf of Albert, Alice
and Adelina lafrate, requesting to rezone properties at 27480
and 27486 Five Mile Road located on the north side of Five Mile
Road between Inkster Road and Foch Avenue in the Southeast
%of Section 13 from R-1 to OS.
20268
Mr. McCann:
I am going to step down and pass the gavel to the Vice
Chairman, Mr. LaPine, because I represent one of the parties in
regard to a probate estate.
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are two items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 14, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal descriptions
of two of the rezoned parcels have an error in their third line.
The point of commencement should be the Southeast comer
not the Southwest comer of said section. We have no objection
to the proposal at this time. Additional right-of-way dedication is
not required. However, there are no City of Livonia storm
facilities available to serve this site. Any work within the Five
Mile Road right -0f -way will require the approval of Wayne
County, including the use of their storm sewer, and detention
facilities will be required in accordance with Wayne County's
Storm Water Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 31, 2003,
which reads as follows: 'This department has no objections to
Petition 2003-01-01-06 by Albert, Alice and Adelina lafrate."
The letter is signed by Alan W. Brendemihl, Jr., Fire Chief. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. LaPine:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ron G. Myers,
865 Penniman Avenue, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. That's the
office of R. G. Myers and Associates, Architects. I am an
architect. I represent the lafrales. We are proposing to rezone
the front portion of this property for office use, a one-story,
approximately 5,000 square fool office building with four single
families in the back, which is existing zoning, R-1.
Mr. La Pine:
Does your client own this property now?
Mr. Myers:
The latretes have owned itfor, I believe, over40 years.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any questionsfromthe Commissioners?
Mr. Walsh:
I'd like to ask the petitioner if it's possible on your plan to use a
60 foot wide road?
20269
Mr. Myers:
I believe there is a 50 foot right-of-way in there according to the
plan from the engineer.
Mr. Walsh:
My concern is the turning radius. That is a planted island in the
middle. I'm not sure that a large fire truck or other vehicle would
be able tum in there. So are you planning on just having a
circle? I mean is itjust going to be a turning area?
Mr. Myers:
Back where the single family would go, that would just be similar
to a cul-de-sac. As you come in, its a way for turning around
for fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
Mr. Walsh:
No landscaping in the center of it?
Mr. Myers:
That's up for debate. When we come back for site plan review,
I'm sure that would be brought up if not by you, by us.
Mr. Walsh:
Right, and we will. I'm getting a little bit ahead of the game, but
I wanted to lest the water a little bit and see what you were
thinking aboutthat.
Mr. Myers:
It would be nice if it were landscaped. I agree with you.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any more questions from the Commissioners? If not,
I'll go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Troy Buono,
15440 Foch. I'm a little concerned about the road they are
proposing to put in back there. I believe it would go right into
the back area of my backyard. And I'm not real happy with that.
That's my concem.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you, Mr. Buono. Anyone else? I will close the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and adopted, itwas
#0432-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 15, 2003, on
Petition 2003-01-01-06 submitted by Ron G. Myers, on behalf of
Albert, Alice and Adelina laFrete, requesting to rezone properties
at 27480 and 27486 Five Mile Road located on the north side of
Five Mile Road between Inkster Road and Foch Avenue in the
Southeast % of Section 13 from R-1 to OS, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2003-01-01-06 be approved forthe following reasons:
20270
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
additional office uses to serve the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical
extension of an adjacent existing OS zoning district;
4. That the northerly boundary of the proposed OS district
would match the non-residential zoning line that exists on
the two adjacent parcels on Five Mile Road; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning conforms to the
recommendation of the Future Land Use Plan for office use
on the southedy portions of the subject properties and Low
Density Residential land use on the northerly portions.
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.
diraven B1�diISNrITFM
Mr. LaPine: Yes, Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh: If I might just mention to the individual that just spoke about his
concerns on the road. We certainly will address that more
thoroughly when we do the site plan. I think the zoning is
correct. If this should prevail, we will have the opportunity to
work with you and the petitioner at that time.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, please call the roll.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walsh, Smiley, LaPine, Alanskas, Shane,
Pieroecchi
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Let the records show that Mr. McCann
returned to the podium al 7:45 p.m.
20271
ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-02-01-09 WM. ROSKELLY
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-02-01-09, submitted by William Roskelly requesting to
rezone properly at 9825 Cranston located on the west side of
Cranston Avenue between West Chicago Road and
Omngelawn Avenue in the Northeast''/.of Section 34 from PL
to One Family Residential.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence? I dont think its
necessary to read the letters that you provided to us, but tell us
who they are from. Each member of the Planning Commission
received copies of five letters from residents.
Mr. Nowak: In addition to the letters from the residents, we have a letter
from the Engineering Division, dated March 12, 2003, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above- eferenced petition. The legal
description as presented appears to be correct. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. Additional fight -of -way
dedication cannot be assessed at this time, since we have not
been presented with a tentative layout." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. I would like to mention
that there were a number of letters submitted that have the
same text that were signed by different residents. The latest
count that we have including letters that were presented tonight
is 137.
Mr. McCann: And that is the copy of the letter from Sarah Geiger. We have
137 ofthese letters?
Mr. Nowak: Yes.
Mr. McCann: We also have letters from Mr. and Mrs. Cook, Mr. and Mrs.
Taylor, Mr. and Mrs. Butler, Ms. Jean Wright and Mr. and Mrs.
Birmingham. We will start with the petitioner tonight as we do
when we have large agendas, including items where we have
numerous people in the audience wishing to speak. We will
limit audience participation to two minutes per person. There
are numerous items on the agenda tonight. We will start with
Mr. Roskelly. Is there anything additional you would like to tell
us?
20272
William Roskelly, 16211 Ryland, Redford, Michigan 48240. I'm make my
comments very short. I indicated in my petition that I purchased
the land on July 26, 2001. I'm asking that the lots be returned to
one family residential. These specific lots are twenty 40 foot
lots platted in 1926. In the surrounding area, in general, almost
all the lots were platted 40 feet. I know there has been some
conversation that, in the event it was no longer a school, in the
original restrictions of the subdivision that it would be returned to
its original use. But I'm also aware because of the time and
they were never renewed, so all these restrictions are null and
void. I have a bit of a problem because on February, 2002, 1
received a notice of assessment, taxable valuation on these 20
different lots, along with half a vacated street. I do not own the
half of the vacated street. I only own a part of it. Al that time,
the taxable value was $152,250.00. In classification, it's known
as residential. So in turn, the taxes I paid, summer tax bill was
$2,590.00, which I paid in July, 2002. The winter tax bill of the
same 20 lots and half a vacated alley, I paid $5,451.91 in
January, 2003. 1 have documents that say in February that this
was zoned and classified as residential. I'm pleading with this
Commission that I be allowed to use my land. I understand it
was made Public Land carte blanche perhaps in the 60's when
the City decided to make all city lands and all school properties
PL, Public Lands. The day I bought this land, in my opinion,
ceased to have this land exist as Public Lands. I do not believe
I can own Public Lands. Certainly old English law says, as long
as I do not impede the health, welfare or safety, I should be able
to build on this land. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: We don't follow cid English law, but thank you. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Please line up at each podium.
Susan Gibson, 9615 Hubbard. I live within 100 feet of the property. I also want
to put in the record that the City never notified me of this latest
rezoning petition. Lel me also reiterate that I am against the
rezoning because its inconsistent with the Master Plan.
Rezoning is contrary to the actual use of the land for the past 75
years. The extersion of Hubbard would negatively impact the
health, safety and welfare of the area residents, and especially
the Kleinert field users. The property can still be used in its
current zoning classification, and the area is already densely
populated. Let's not forget that a very well informed Mr.
Roskelly brought this hardship upon himself by purchasing PL
zoned land without confingendes in an eyes wide open deal
with LPS. Lastly, I also would like to believe that each and
every member of this Planning Commission has at least taken a
20278
drive by the property while the kids are out there playing before
voting on this issue. Thankyou.
Rick Rainville, 9928 Hubbard. Mr. Chair and Planning Commission members, I
have three concerns. I'm hoping that one of you can address
the third concern either tonight or in writing. My first concern is
the storm runoff system. About four years ago under a heavy
storm, I did have a flooded basement from the storm system. I
had two licensed plumbers come out, take a look at my system,
do some work, and both confirmed that they felt that the current
system was overloaded. I don't know if that's the case or not,
but I know what I paid for new carpeting and new furniture, and I
don't want to go through that again. My concem is that with
even more concrete driveways, walkways, foundations, as many
homes as he may be planning to put on that property, is our
system adequate? I've got reason to believe that maybe we
should check into that. Number two, I'm a heavy user of the
property in question, or I was. I have not been since it was
purchased; I have respect for private property if that's what it is.
But I can attest to this fad, that many times I've been out on the
Kleinert field and have not been able to get on because of
heavy use. This past Sunday, I was able to get on and there
were already two other groups on that field. One on one
baseball field, a group of teenagers playing flag football on the
middle part of the field, and then myself and some neighbors
were with the kids out there playing on the far field. A fourth
group came in. They had nowhere to go. They were teenagers;
they too wanted to play softball. I thought about getting off the
property, but I thought, no, I have a tough time getting on it.
They themselves moved to the property in question. I was
about ready to tell them that they had no right to be there, but
that's the wrong message. One time is too many to tell
teenagers they can't play. They were in the right place. They
were doing the right things. They meant to do the right things,
and they have a right to open space. We all do. So as far as
our welfare goes, do we really want to tell teenagers they can't
play, that they cant have open field space, or that the kids in
our neighborhood can't play? I dont think so. There are a lot of
city teams out there. There are school teams out there that
make that field a very lough place to get onto. The third
concern, and I'm hoping someone, again, can address this - the
planning process. I find it ironic that we're here before the
Planning Commission because there has been no planning. I
put this squarely on the shoulders of our Superintendent and
our School Board. Its a process that has included closed
meetings, a threat of a lawsuit by our superintendent, a threat of
a lawsuit by the proposed purchaser over here. It's put the
Mayor at odds with its own citizens. It's a process that if not
20274
illegal, is highly unethical and places poor lighfing on this city
and on its schools. Can we ask the Planning Commission or
some agency of the City to become more proactive with the
schools? Again, I place the responsibility on our schools, to see
if something can come up that sure makes a heck of a lot more
sense that what we've experienced. It's been a bad experience
for all concerned, and I have to think that there's a better way to
go. There are many other vacant properties out there. I'd hate
to see us go down this same road with all those properties. I'll
sit down now and hope to hear from one of you. Thank you.
Jean Wynn, 11422 Ingram. I've lived in the Old Rosedale Gardens area of
Livonia for six years, and for approximately three years, or half
the time I've lived there, I have been involved in the struggle to
save from development the 2-1/2 acre piece of land at the south
of Rosedale that we have in question tonight. After over 70
years of public ownership and use, this property got into the
hands of developer William Roskelly in a highly questionable
transaction and sale carried out by the Livonia Public Schools'
administrators. Roskelly has again asked that the property be
rezoned residential after it was turned down previously by both
the City Council and the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are now
informed that he has paid taxes on the property and that he
might take his case to court. Roskelly bought this land without
contingencies pertaining to zoning and should thus receive no
sympathy or consideration for his current dilemma, taxes or
otherwise. As to concern about him taking the matter to court, I
believe that if Roskelly thought he had a decent case, he would
have sued already. But so far he has not sued and,
furthermore, I don't believe he would risk being deposed legally
in this matter where he could be subject to probing questions
regarding the highly questionable and possible illegal manner in
which this land was sold to him. William Roskelly is neither an
elected public official nor a Livonia resident. Yet, he has
steamrolled over the residents of this City again and again over
the years pulling the strings of City Hall and the School Board in
a way reminiscent of Edgar Berman and Charlie McCarthy, with
the City being Charlie McCarthy. I urge you, the people of this
Planning Commission, to take a stand and vote an unequivocal
"no" as did City Council on this rezoning request and show this
developer the door. The building of Livonia by developers must
end, otherwise it may be time to change the sign at the
boundary of Livonia which stales "Livonia families first."
Change it to"Livonia developers first" Thankyou.
Ray Tent, 18051 Dearing. I've been here for 45 years. I think I can answer a
couple questions that were brought up today. I would like to
stale first that I respect Mr. William Roskelly a lot. He is my
20275
friend. He has had many issues before the Planning
Commission while I served this distinguished body. I found him
to have integrity, honesty and he is a good developer. He really
is. He's a good guy. You wonder why I'm up here now. Well,
I'm opposed to what is going on here and I want to shed a Iitfle
light. But I just want &11 to know that he's my friend. If you want
to know what's going on here in the City, come up to the Senate
Coney Island on Saturdays at 9:00 and you'll see all the
politicians on both sides of the fence discussing many of the
issues of the City. And you learn a lot there. Now, that I've
squared this thing up with Mr. Roskely, however, I take
exception to this petiton and with him and oppose his action.
This is in defiance of the Master Plan, and why do I say its in
defiance of the Master Plan? Because I was the guy that was
there. We put together the first Master Plan for the City of
Livonia. Mr. Roskelly is correct. In the 1960's, Harvey Moelke
was the mayor then. He got together with us and he said, "Say,
will the people know what a cow and horse looks like in 50
years?" That was the Greenmead fans. He said, "Why don't
we go ahead and rezone that in the Public Land plan?" So with
that in mind, we went ahead and John DuFour, he was our
Parks and Recreafional Director, we all got together and we
floated a bond millage. We worked very hard to gel a millage to
buy all the open space that we could find, all the public lands.
This was designated as one of those. Well, during that tme, we
were responsible for fightng for and gettng park plan bond
issued and passed to purchase open land for future use. Guess
what? We purchased Greenmead; we purchased Whispering
Willows; we purchased Idyl Wy1d; we purchased Fox Creek and
many more. And we put them on our Master Parks Plan. Not
that we would never develop it, but we figured when the
developers would come in, and they want to pick up the land,
we had some use for it. We did dispose of some of the land, but
we kept it all intact. So that was our Master Parks Plan.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Tent, my secretary has advised me that you've already gone
over the two minutes. Can we direct the conversafron to ...
Mr. Tent: Well, should l direct this to the newspaper?
Mr. McCann: No, no. Thats fine, please do. But I would ask you, if it's an
issue of buying the land by the City, that's an issue before the
Council. Tonight is whether the zoning should be changed.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman, the queston was . Mr. Roskelly said he
purchased the land. This was done in the 60's. I wanted to
clarify the point, yes, it's true, that we had done that and this
was part of our Master Plan. Arid so, what I would say, is we
20276
provided the open space and the public land. It bothers me that
our Master Plan is being compromised in many ways. I ask that
the Planning Commission reject Mr. Roskelly's rezoning petition
and the land should remain public. Thank you.
Bob Stockton, 17330 Fairfield. I'm a board member of Friends of Open Spaces
in Livonia, FOSIL. I have a letter from Janet Afonso, President
of Friends of Open Spaces in Livonia. I anticipate that this will
take more than two minutes, Mr. Chairman. The two people
behind me are willing to cede their two minutes to me to read
this.
Met VMT151"Mi ir_
Mr. Stockton: Thank you very much because this does represent literally
dozens of people.
Mr. McCann: l understand. l know it does.
Mr. Stockton: `Once again our City faces a petition by Mr. William Roskelly to
rezone the site of the former Rosedale Gardens Elementary
School from Public Land to Residential. The City has already
addressed two rezoning petitions on this same property, first
with Mr. Roskelly as a representative for LPS, then a second
time with Mr. Roskelly as the new owner of the property. In the
first case, LPS withdrew the petition, acknowledging a lack of
support for the rezoning by the City Council. The second time
Mr. Roskelly's petition was flatly denied by unanimous vote of
the Council, a decision that was later reaffirmed by a 5-1
majority of the ZBA. In the late 1970s, a similar petition to
rezone the school's playground was also denied by the City
Council. The last two times you heard the petition, you rightly
expressed a variety of concerns, including population density,
the need for open space in the area, and the safety of Kleinert
Field users. Both times you said you were `passing it on' to the
City Council because the matter should be thoroughly debated
and decided at that level. It still perplexes me that even those of
you who expressed legitimate concerns, sent it on with your
approval anyway. Perhaps you were unduly frightened by the
threat of lawsuits. Perhaps you made a decision out of fear,
lacking objective advice from attorneys specifically qualified to
assist you within this highly unusual legal context. Perhaps you
did so for reasons you did not feel comfortable sharing with the
public. 1 was left to wonder what we, the public, should think
when our Planning Commission ignores its own expressed
concems on the matter. 1 watched as you voted instead to
accommodate the wishes of a powerful, longstanding political
donor, who openly boasts of the numerous lucrative public
20277
contracts he has received from our School district and City.
Can anyone blame the citizens' frustration when their concems
over a tiny plot of public land appear ignored by this public
body? Is it any surprise we wonder who calls the shots in our
planning department? Well, after you voted to recommend the
petition, the rezoning petition was thoroughly discussed and
debated by the City Council. Much information was entered into
the public record providing a solid defense should the developer
make good on his various threats to sue. The City Council then
voted unanimously to deny the petition, making it very clear why
the property should remain zoned for public use. They noted
the negative impact of rezoning on the health, safety and
welfare of the many users of Kleinert Field. They cited the
dense population and corresponding need for open spaces in
the area. They supported the City Master Plan and previous
decisions by the City Council on similar requests to rezone the
adjacent public lands. They acknowledged 75 years of
continuous use by the public. They noted that a private
individual could in fact own public land, and that Roskelly had
ways he could use the land within the Public Land designation.
It was clear in the public record he had purchased the property
(without zoning contingency), fully aware of bre Master Plan, the
current zoning, the strong public opposition to rezoning, the 75
year actual use of the property, and the earlier denials to rezone
adjacent public lands. When the public addressed the City
Council and the ZBA, it did so with factual arguments supported
by verifiable documentation. Several reports and data analyses
were prepared by professionals and submitted to the City,
including statistical analyses of population, demographics,
property values, school traffic patterns, populations of preschool
and school-age children coming into the area daily, a
comparative analysis of assessed values and residential taxes
throughout Livonia, city park land statistics and usage statistics
for area parks. Photographs were submitted documenting an
unbroken chain of use by the public, before and afterit changed
hands. Other photos showed dangerous patterns of public
parking during Kleinert ball games, a longstanding problem that
grew significantly worse after the school parking lot was
demolished. There was also a professionally produced video
that addressed the historical significance of the property and
explained the position of citizens who opposed residential
zoning. All of this documentation remains relevant to this new
petition. It directly addresses factors from the zoning ordinance
that must be taken into account in zoning decisions. 1 formally
request here that each of the above-mentioned reports become
part of the current record, and that you thoroughly review all of it
before you make your decision on this very important issue.
Numerous copies were provided and should be available in the
20278
City Council, Planning Department and ZBA files. Should any
item listed above be missing, 1 ask that 1 be contacted so that
new copies can be provided well before you vote. For your
convenience, a new copy of the video is being supplied to each
of you to take home tonight Finally, 1 would offer my own
personal opinion on this situation. 1 believe Mr. Roskelly grossly
underestimated the will of the public and the City Council when
he unwisely took this business risk. His conditioned response is
to threaten to sue the city. However, the United States court
system does not exist to protect a man from his own poor
judgment. Nor will it expect a City to abandon its Master Plan
and zoning ordinances to compensate the foolish mistake of an
experienced businessman, who should have known better. 1
believe judges know developers do not normally buy land
without contingencies, and they will therefore look at his prior
land deals with the school district, his many public contracts with
the school district and the city, and his active record as a
political contributor for an explanation of the transaction. This
land purchase appears to have nothing to do with sound
business practice, and everything to do with preconceived
expectations. Could this be the reason he did not sue last time
after clearly indicating his intent to do so? You are charged with
the responsibility to use our zoning ordinances to protect the
safety, health and welfare of the public and the Master Plan.
This time though you need not make this important decision
based on conjecture, hunches, or legal advice from attorneys
who do not specialize in this area of law. You have all the
information you need to fulfill your duty to the public.
Furthermore, you have the benefit of knowing the City Council's
position on it. 1 therefore ask that you pass it on to them, this
time, with a recommendation to deny. Sincerely, and with
gratitude for your public service, Jan Afonso, 9918 Hubbard
Livonia, MI 48150." Thank you.
Lucas MacRail, 9611 Cranston. I live approximately 150 feel from the property in
question. My wife and I just recently purchased 9611 Cranston,
literally three weeks ago. One of he features that we liked a lot
was the open public land that was almost adjacent to our home.
I am an architect and a member in good standing, an associate
member of the American Institute of Architects. When I heard
about this issue, I chose to come out tonight to at least voice
some concems for your considemton. I do not know Mr.
Roskelly either as a developer or as an individual. I can only
merely say that I am concerned about the current glut of homes
on the market in Livonia currently. There are currently over 300
homes for sale by private owners that have been sitting on the
market for quite some time. At lead 25% of them have been on
the market for more than six months. My first concem is
20279
pdmadly the fad that this would become an additional
augmentation of that existing glut. I feel that perhaps there is no
more need at this time for homes in the City of Livonia. My
secondary concern is what some of these other audience
members have raised, is that loss of public space. It is quite an
impressive open tract of land. I have just moved from Canton, a
city that at an exponential rate is eliminating its open spaces
much to my great dismay - another reason my wife and I chose
to search, find and buy in Livonia. I'm also concerned that there
is no apparently plan yet for Mr. Roskelly. I am concerned
about the habil of building big fool homes in open tracts of land
in established cities and neighborhoods. From my architectural
background and standpoint, I am concerned about the
architectural integrity of a historic neighborhood such as
Rosedale Gardens. I am concerned because I feel that it may
be in jeopardy by homes that do not blend nor seem to belong
in an historic neighborhood of this nature. I'm also concerned
about its historical draracter, of changing this open tract of land
to homes that do not ft the architectural fabric of the
neighborhood. And finally, just to point out the information that
this developer dearly stated that he is not from Livonia, that he
is from Redford. And perhaps he does not fully understand the
behavior or personality traits of this neighborhood as well as its
residents. He stated that as long as he is not impeding well-
being or welfare, that he should be flee to use his land as he
sees fit. I am concerned that he is not taking into account the
neighborhood's well-being or the welfare of the residents.
Perhaps he is only worried about his own well-being and his
own welfare. Thank you very much for your time.
John Stimac, 11035 Berwick. I concur with what's been said tonight on behalf of
the people that spoke before me. I want to echo what the
gentleman who just spoke said about the historic nature of the
property. In spite of it not being nationally recognized as an
historic district, in my eyes and many other eyes, it is. I'm
opposed to the rezoning that is being requested, and I think the
land should remain an open space or a park of some sort rather
than homes. I feel there are plenty of homes in Livonia already.
One of the areas that drew me to Rosedale Gardens was the
unique character of that area. I moved from Columbus, Indiana,
to Rosedale. Columbus, Indiana is recognized as the fourth or
fifth best architectural quality town in America, and I think
Rosedale ranks right up there with Columbus. The area is
much smaller than Columbus, but represents a lot of the same
qualities. By putting new homes in the area that is being
proposed, I think you're going to severely compromise the
architectural integrity of the area. Thanks for allowing me to
speak.
20280
Tim Bailey, 9826 Cranston. I am a founding member of FOSIL, that is Friends of
Open Spaces in Livonia. I'm also the secretary. I'm not going
to repeat things that have been said tonight or things in the past.
I'll try to bring some new data forward for you. Two major
problems have surfaced since the tearing down of Rosedale's
school and the elimination of its parking lot. The main one, I
shouldn't say the main one because I think they are of equal
value, and that is the parking situation. We lost a parking lot
there. And when I say we, I mean every citizen of Livonia lost a
parking lot, that is the people, the organized ball teams that
came there to play, now no longer have a place to park. They
are forced to park in the street and last summer they were
parking all over the grass. I mean, literally, it would probably be
illegal parking. But they were just pulling their cars onto the
lawn and there was in excess of 25 cars. That is an enormous
amount of cars to be parked on the street, and it has set forth a
safety problem with the children there. The ballpark is
extremely close to the street, and with all those parked cars, it's
just a real shame. Nov the other thing that has happened is the
parking lot used to provide a place for kids to play street hockey
and rollerblading and skateboarding. Recently, they have
resorted to using the private parking lot of the Presbyterian
Church, and this is creating a problem. There are houses that
back up to that parking lot. and now these children, teenagers,
are coming late at night playing street hockey and are being
loud in the evening, and cussing and so forth. This is not
working well with the three houses that back up to that parking
lot. The result of it will probably be that the church will shut that
parking lot down because that's a private parking lot. Now we
force teenagers from the Rosedale school parking lot, over to
the church parking lot, soon to be forced somewhere else.
Where are these kids going to play street hockey? That park,
that school, provided an overflow for Kleinert Park. When I say
overflow, I'm talking about siblings and parents that have come
to watch their kids play organized sports. They would use that
lawn and that parking lot to overflow into. A place for siblings to
play safely. Houses in this area is not going to work. I firmly
believe that if we allay houses to be built on this property, it will
be the demise of the yet another city park. Kleinert Park will be
useless if there is not parking provided and a place for siblings
to play. There has to be something else besides an organized
ball team on that field. There has to be a place for parents to be
and there has to be a place for people to play hockey and so
forth. And I truly believe that if houses are put there, those
people are going to be down here making noise about balls
being in their backyard and broken windows and people
trampling through their yards and cars parking on their front
20281
lawns. They'll make so much noise to the point that something
will have to be done about Kleinert Park, and I'm seriously afraid
that we're going to lose that. So I guess I'll end it at that. My
greatest fear is that we lose Kleinert Park; it's badly needly. I
urge each and every one of you to come down while those kids
are playing there. That is the after-school hours when those
organized teams are down there. Parents are coming to watch;
parents are coming to pick people up. These kids needs a
place to play and especially teenagers. I think teenagers are
probably the most vulnerable part of our society, and I think
those are the last ones we want to tell that they can't play in the
parking lot. Thanks for your time.
Christopher Martin, 11037 Hubbard. I've lived in Old Rosedale for 50 years. I'm
very familiar with the area. The thing about it is that talk about
that park. I remember when Kleinert Park wasn't even there. It
was owned by the school system. They leased it from the City.
There were three baseball diamonds on that park. Two of them
are still presently there. Hubbard Street went all the way
through to West Chicago. There was oft -street parking on the
west side of Hubbard that look care of all the cars that were
there for the three baseball diamonds at that time, not just the
two that are remaining. I've heard so much crap here tonight
and over the last two years on this, it's unbelievable. Not one
person has come up here in I don't know how many years that
baseball has been played down there, that ever thanked the
Livonia Public School system for leasing any of that property to
the City of Livonia. You know, these people are very gifted
speakers, some of them. The thing about this property is that
when they say the kids are in danger, there were more kids in
the neighborhood when I grew up there because of the baby
boom. There was also Rosedale School that functioned there.
Busses were coming in. Whitman School was there. More
children lived in the area and used that park than what are using
R now. There weren't any kids con over. And this kind of ticked
me oft. I sat and talked with the Mayor about this one. The day
before (you can laugh if you want), the day before the hearing
was going to held with the Zoning Board of Appeals ... I live on
Hubbard Street. I saw all these cars parked down at the end by
the park. And I saw scattered people at one baseball diamond
and at another and then St. Michael's gids softball team on
Roskelly's property. Pictures were taken.
Mr. McCann: Yes, I am going to ask you to finish up. I let other people go
beyond two minutes, and I'll lelyou, but please finish up.
Mr. Martin: Pictures were taken. Ok? It was a photo opportunity showing
how there was no place for cars to park, kids by the street. It
20282
was almost shameful because what these people are trying to
say to their kids is that "I want you to follow my example." If you
think we need a park here, you know, for the kids and stuff, fine.
But to use kids, put them out by the street, park cars up on the
grass to take pictures, and then say, "Look, we had to gravitate
over to Bill Roskelly's property because the other baseball
diamonds were full" Their own people were on those other
baseball diamonds. So this is just nonsense, okay, as far as I'm
concerned because I lived there 50 years. And the same
people that are arguing tonight over houses being built there,
are the same people, the same Homeowners Association, that
said, "Hey, we don't want those three houses built on the west
side of Hubbard Street, just north of West Chicago."
Mr. McCann: Okay
Mr. Martin:
Just one last thing. Overflow parking - that off-street parking
cannot only be used for the park, less now than when I was a
kid. And also the Presbyterian Church, when they have a big
event, off-street parking on the west side of Hubbard, park their
cars there.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Thank you. I'm going to dose the public hearing. Mr.
Roskelly, you have the last statement if you'd like to make it.
Mr. Roskely:
Yes, thank you. I have one observation, one question and one
comment. My observation is that there are approximately 690
houses in Old Rosedale. Are we to assume that this is the only
small group that is objecting to single family homes? I suggest
perhaps right, because I've had 52 people that live in Old
Rosedale that want to know if they can buy a lot and get a
house because they needed a little more room but they love
Rosedale. That's my observation. My question is, one of the
comments was that I can use this land as it is presently zoned.
Can anybody on this Board tell me what I can do with that land
in its present zoning - public land?
Mr. McCann:
It can be used if you had a lease from a state agency, the State
of Michigan or from the City of Livonia, you could lease it to
them.
Mr. Roskely:
Thank you. And my last and final comment is, I never was, I am
not, and I do not plan to be Edgar Bergman. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. The public hearing is over. A motion is in order.
20283
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopkd,
it was
#0433-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 15, 2003, on
Petition 2003-02-01-09, submitted by William Roskelly
requesting to rezone properly at 9825 Cranston located on the
west side of Cranston Avenue between West Chicago Road and
Orengelawn Avenue in the Northeast''/.of Section 34 from PL
to One Family Residenfial, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-02-01-
09, as amended, be approved so as to rezone this property to
R-3 forthe following reasons:
1. That the proposed rezoning to R-3 would allow for
development of homes that would be more in keeping with
standards of new construction throughout the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
development of the subject properly for single family
residential purposes in a compatible manner with other
developed properties in the area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
established character of the area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning reflects the fact that
the subject property has been sold by the Livonia Public
Schools and is no longer in public ownership.
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: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh: I would like to just indicate to the people who came out tonight,
obviously there is a lot of history on this property. I've spoken to
many of you individually. I've spoken to many of your
neighbors, individually, that are not here. Two years ago when I
was on the Council, of course, we had numerous hearings in
this room and up in our chambers. We need not to recall all of
that history except for a few pieces. One, there was a school
there. It was occupied. It had a parking lot. It was used by the
20284
school system. It was not a park. I often hear the reference to
"keep the park, keep the park." It was a building. It was
developed. It was a previous use. I don't fear a lawsuit from
Mr. Roskelly. I have reviewed the record, all of it. And I'm
confident in the legal advise that we've received from our Law
Department. I recall that two years ago we had an excellent
compromise that was supported by 13 out of the 15 elected
officials that were involved. It was denied because two people
on the City Council out of seven voted against it, and it was
enough because of a valid protest. Had that compromise been
adopted, there would be a park, two-thirds of that certainly
would have been a park, owned by the City and in use. The
neighborhood or whoever may have had the opportunity to
purchase it for purposes of adding that to the City for park land
as well. What we're left with tonight is a petition by a private
landowner. He has rights. He is making a proposal for us to
look at to determine whether or not its compatible with
surrounding uses. I believe the R3 designation that I included
in my resolution is appropriate. For that reason, Mr. Chair, I've
offered the approving resolution.
Mr. McCann: Are there additional comments? Mr. Alanskas?
Mr. Alanskas: I'm sure everyone in the audience knows the classifications just
as well as we do, but with the R-3 classification, it would yield a
total of only eight lots, not 20. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine: When I came here tonight, I was going to ask for a tabling
motion, but after hearing from the members of the audience, my
dander is up a little when people say that we are not really doing
our job, that we're being manipulated by somebody. I've been a
resident of this town for 48 years. Of those 48 years, 42 years
I've served on the Zoning Board of Appeals and this Planning
Commission. I vote my conscious. I vote what I believe in.
Originally when I heard this case, my gut feeling was to keep it
as a park. But once that land was sold, it's no longer public land
in my estimation. It belongs to a private owner. Now if anybody
can tell me that anything should go in there other than homes,
then I think theyre absolutely wrong. As Mr. McCann pointed
out, if Mr. Roskelly can find somebody in the public sector who
wants to build a building on that property for public use, they
can build it, and you people couldn't do a thing about it because
its public land. I think we're all better off in the long con that this
be residential homes. You may think it's wrong. You may think
its going to interfere with the lifestyle you have there today. But
believe me, when I moved out to this town years ago, I thought
Wonderland Shopping center was going to be a tremendous
20285
burden upon my home because I live down there, but . . .
(audience interruption)
Mr. McCann: Excuse me. We listened to you. Please.
Mr. La Pine: We listened to you. Have the courtesy to listen to us. You don't
even have to agree with him, but I found out later, after it was
built, I lived with it. It didn't bother me. I got used to it. And you
people will gel used to that if and when it should happen that the
homes go in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: Excuse me, but let's grow up a Iitlle bit. I was going to make a
comment saying how well run the meeting was tonight, how I
appreciate people coming out, speaking their minds on issues of
the city, people doing research on issues and giving educated
remarks on the podium. People hissing and booing just kind of
took that out of my list of things to do. But I think for the most
part, we have had good discussions here tonight. Ms. Afonso
came to the study meeting last week, and I thought she
presented some new information for us to look at that I
respected. I thought about it over the week. I also look a look
at the minutes from the Iasi time we were here. We started out
tonight with Mr. Roskelly citing some old English law. Well, we
don't follow old English law but many of our laws are based on
old English law. Most of our laws are based on the Constitution
of the United States, and it's still one of the prime things about
this country that makes it great - the right to own private
property, the right to go into business for yourself and the right
to have this type of existence. I was not convinced by the
audience tonight that we are not depriving Mr. Roskelly of the
private use of his property. Mr. Bailey brought up the issue that
the church could dose its parking lot. That's private property.
They have the right to close that parking lot oft to the residents,
and he doesn't see anything wrong with the church doing that.
But Mr. Roskelly buys a piece of land, and Mr. Bailey says "No,
R has to stay open for our parking lot." There was a lot of anger
with the School Board for selling the lot. That has nothing to do
with this Board. It was sold. It was sold to a private individual.
It's no longer being used as a public lot. Its a private lot.
Therefore, we have to find some type of reasonable zoning.
The City Attorney has specialized in real estate law for the Iasi
18 years; he's represented the City; he's been on the City
Council. He's researched it. His assistant, who went to
Harvard, wrote an opinion with him basically saying that we're
depriving Mr. Roskelly of his ability to use the land maintaining it
as PL zoning. Now, I don't disagree with the arguments that
were made tonight, that it would be beneficial to the City to
maintain it in a park land type use, or to establish a parking lot
20286
there or that it would not benefit the area residents. That's an
issue before the Council, not an issue before the Planning
Commission. What we're charged with tonight is to take a look
at the proper zoning for an individual who has a private use of
this property. Not how it got there, not why it's there, but is it a
proper use. Unfortunately, Ms. Afonso wasn't here tonight. I
was bothered by the fact that she said we did not state reasons
why we voted the way we did last time. I looked at the minutes.
We were very dear as to why we did it. We had a legal opinion
and we also reised many questions as to how a PL zoning
wouldn't work. My biggest concern as I've staled off the record
many times was that if he got a contract with Jackson Prison to
build a half -way house, the City has absolutely no authority to
say yes or no against that. It's a state-run institution. This is a
situation where you have a private individual with a piece of
private property. Is it a property zoning? And I have to go with
my legal training, the legal opinion of the City Attorney, and
come up with some reasonable use of the land for that
individual. R-2 or R-3 I said last time were fine. There's a
motion tonight for R3. Therefore, I have to agree that its the
proper thing to do. It may not be right for the residents in that
situation, but it's the just legal thing to do for a private individual
owner.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a
recommendation for R-3 zoning.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2003-02-0140 SPALDING PROPERTIES
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-02-01-10, submitted by Larry De Fiore, on behalf of
Spalding Properties, LLC, requesting to rezone property located
on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road
and Roselinda Road in the Southeast %of Section 30 from RUF
to R-8 and R-1.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated March 14, 2003, which
20287
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal
description of the overall parcel as presented is correct,
however, some of the rezoning descriptions should be changed
as to their form since the use of tax designations such as Lot
543(clb) is not a proper legal description. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. Additional right -of my
dedication of 27 feet is required at this time for Plymouth Road.
We have provided revised descriptions on the sheet attached to
this response. Any work within the Plymouth Road right -of my
will require the approval of the Michigan Department of
Transportation. Detention facilities will be required in
accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management
Ordinance." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated March 31, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This
department has no objection to Petition 2003-02-01-10
(Spalding Properties) with the understanding that the following
conditions may need to be considered. (1) Provide adequate
water supply for fire suppression and sprinkler needs. (2)
Provide access for firefighting apparatus, including elevated
platform access to all sides of any high-rise building. (3)
Provide access to all egress doors for rescue squads. (4)
Provide adequate sized elevator for rescue squad stretcher and
personnel." The letter is signed by Alan W. Brandemihl, Jr., Fire
Chief. We have correspondence from John and Evelyn Lennon,
dated April 11, 2003, which reads as follows: "This is in
response to the letter 1 received about the proposal to rezone
the property west of Jughandle Road and east of Parkview
Condo site. 1 live in the Parkview Condo site. 1 don't oppose
the development of the land but 1 don't think high-rise buildings
go with the norm in this neighborhood. 1 would not oppose
condos like Parkview has. Thank you." We have a letter from
Patrician A. Baker, 11783 Roselinda, dated April 22, 2003,
which reads as follows: "1 am a resident of the Parkview
Condominium development near Plymouth and Newburgh
Roads. 1 have received the notice of public hearing regarding a
zoning variance request regarding Petition 2003-02-01-10. 1
would like to express my opposition to this proposed
development and rezoning. 1 realize that this property likely will
be developed at some point, and 1 am not opposed to
developmentin and ofitse/f. Actually, l believe that it is good for
the city and the community. However, 1 do not feel that a high-
rise development is appropriate for this area. This type of high
density housing poses potential problems for the area and the
city. In addition, the aesthetics are not in keeping with the
surrounding community. 1 would support a development of
single family homes, smilax to those currently existing in the
Ylblil
area. 1 would like to attend the public hearing on the 15th to
lend my support to those opposing this development. But since
1 am a CPA and this is tax day,' 1 may not be available to
attend. In the event that 1 am unable to attend, please accept
this letter as my strong opposition to this proposed plan of
development. Because of my extended working hours at this
time of the year, 1 was not available to sign the letter
representing the position of our condominium association, but 1
am fully in support of the board's stance on this issue. 1 hope
that upon consideration of all factors, and the desires of the
existing community, that our community leaders will deny this
zoning request" The next letter is from Patricia A. and Gary R.
Seleski, 11778 Roselinda, dated April 14, 2003, which reads as
follow: As residents of the Parkview site condos, we are
strongly opposed to the proposed rezoning for a high-rise
multiple family residential development near Plymouth and
Newburgh Roads. In recent years, with the development of the
Parkview and Hunters Pointe subdivisions, together with the
already existing homes on larger parcels, our little part of
Livonia has become a cohesive neighborhood of families with
children, young couples and empty nesters. We believe that the
proposed rezoning and development in this park -like setting
would be inappropriate, nonconforming and detrimental to our
area. It would create problems where there are none. It would
also destroy our quality oflife. Affordable, single family privately
owned homes are the appropriate development for this
particular area and they will sell. We know this to be true, since
we ourselves moved into our new construction home just under
a year ago. Only one of us was available to sign the
neighborhood petition against this proposal. However, we are
both planning to attend the April 15 Public Hearing to show our
support of the Parkview Condominium Association's position
against the proposed R-8 rezoning. We need your help in
preserving the stability, integrity and natural beauty of our area.
We are confident that you will do what is best for the City- and
this petition will ultimately be denied." The next letter is from the
Parkview Condominium Association, dated March 30, 2003,
which reads as follows: As concemed residents and taxpayers
of the City of Livonia, we are writing to communicate our
opposition to the proposed rezoning petition referenced above.
Recently it has come to our attention that a significant high-rise
multi -family residential development may be in the early
planning stages on property adjacent to our neighborhood. The
petition outlines rezoning a large portion of over 11 parcels of
land (currently zoned RUF) to the east of our single-family
residential development to R-8 (High Rise Multiple Family
Residential). The residents of the Parkview development are
strongly opposed to this rezoning for the following reasons: (1)
20289
Inconsistency of the high-density nature of the proposed
development with the citys master plan and with the
surrounding mix of Rl, Rural Urban Farm, and open park land.
(2) Increased traffic, congestion, and noise in area due to
addition of a high-density development, particularly the added
danger of sharing the entrance of this development with an
active Livonia Fire Station. (3) Proximity of high-density
development to Newburgh Lake/Lower Rouge River and the
potential unfiltered runoff that would be added to this natural
watershed area. Interestingly, the same area where millions of
tax dollars were recently spent to rehabilitate and restock this
lake due to previous pollution and built up toxic sediments. The
residents of Parkview are also preparing to take additional
action in opposition to this zoning ordinance including prepared
statements through a spokesman at the upcoming planning
commission public hearing as well as a formal protest pursuant
to Section 23.07 of the Zoning Ordinance. Please file this
correspondence and attached signatures as official notice of
public opposition to this ordinance. Ultimately, the residents of
Parkview are not anti -development and are not opposed to the
ultimate development of this valuable property and to the
continued managed growth of Livonia's tax base. However, we
went to work with the city's leaders and the members of this
commission to insure that this development is done in a manner
that is consistent with the surrounding natural landscape and
existing developments, and to the extent possible preserves or
even enhances the value of all current and future developments
within this beautiful natural area." There were a total of 27
signatures attached to the letter. We were provided with a letter
from John Correia, 11684 Roselinda, dated April 14, 2003,
which is addressed to the City Council as an official protest to
the rezoning petition. That was signed by nine persons who
purport to own land within 100 feel of the subject property. We
haven't had a chance to verify this petition, but there has been a
protest petition fled. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Larry DeFiore, Spalding Properties, LLC, 39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 312,
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. My firm hired a local
planning fine to fnd the best use of this property. Today I have
with me Joel from Calvin Hall and Associates, our land planning
firm, to share with you what our plans for the properly are. I'm
also licensed as a CPA and I'm happy to report that I'm here on
April 15.
Mr. McCann: Its very costly, I'm sure.
20290
Mr. DeFiore:
Very costly. Its certainly worth the investment. We take a very
participatory style and appreciate your open minds to look at the
proposal that our land planners have put together.
Felino Pascual,
Calvin Hall and Associates, 29895 Greenfield Road, Suite 102,
Southfield, Michigan. Everybody knows me as Joel. I'm not
sure if anybody has provided you with our colored boards and
what we're proposing.
Mr. McCann:
Well put up atripod foryou.
Mr. Pascual:
In any event, just to give you a quick overview of what we're
proposing ... we're requesting an R8 zoning. What this R-8
zoning allows us is a multiple high-rise building. What we're
proposing is actually a 2-1/2 story building that consists ofjust a
simple loop road system. The building is somewhat similar to
the Phoenix over on Six Mile and Farmington Road. In
essence, that's simply what we're doing. What we've done is
set back the building 75 feet through the property to preserve as
much of the woodland area, and the building fronts are facing
the property side so that they're not looking at the rears of the
garages and things like that. The design is pretty simple. It
consists of just a boulevard entrance and it's a private loop road
system which is just about 24 feel wide; we end at the collector
road. Its really quite open. I believe we tried to preserve some
of the natural features as much as we can, and I think it's
probably best suited for this area because it's a transition zoning
from the C to R-8 and into R-1. That's pretty much it.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You said the buildings would be 2-1/2 story?
Mr. Pascual:
Yes, it would be about 2-1/2 stories. The reason for that is to
alloy . because the grade is dropping, it allows some
flexibility in some of the heights.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
On what grounds do you feel that this type of structure in the
area is totally compafible with the surrounding zoning? What
grounds doyou have?
Mr. Pascual:
I believe to the west of this, there is R8 existing zoning. We
have some zoned industrial site to the northwest. We also had
some, I think there's some elderly housing to the north of this.
So this area is actually somewhat of a mixed use of zoning. We
fell, probably, that since it's adjacent to C-1, the transition to an
RA, which is multiple 2-1/2 story, then single family, it would be
20291
a good transition for the commercial that might happen in the
future.
Mr. Piercecchi:
North of your property, sir, is RUF and west is also residential.
South is, I guess, a park. You're right. It is C-1 to the east, but
you don't have any qualms about increasing the population
density in that area and the traffic? You dont think it will have
any adverse effects on the surrounding zoning?
Mr. Pascual:
I can't really respond to that. We dont have any traffic analysis
studies atthis point.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It's important to us because we hate to ...
Mr. Pascual:
Obviously, you're right itwill increase the residential traffic, yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You're looking at RAC? Is that what you said?
Mr. Pascual:
No, just RA.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, it says condominiums in the write-up here, so that would
be R-8.
Mr. Pascual:
RAC would be a higlrnse I think.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, with the regular R-8, you'd be getting 14-1/2 units.
Mr. Pascual:
What we're showing here ... the maximum density that we feel
would fit into this site at the moment is about 11.03 units to the
acre. As of right now, what we're showing here.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Any reason why you're not considering developing this as a
residential piece of property?
Mr. Pascual:
We were thinking that this would be a transition zoning from the
commercial to a higher use, and then to a single family use.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You have roughly eight acres. You can fit a lot of R7 and R-2
and R-3 in there, and make it, to me, a more logical
development rather than 2-1/2 stories. Who knows what you
may end up with, which is giving you the RA zoning which
means you could go to four stones. Right?
Mr. Pascual:
Right.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So we're not sure of that.
20292
Mr. Pascual:
Would you consider an R-7, which is a two-story multi -family
residential use?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Did you say, would we like R-7?
Mr. Pascual:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
No. I would like all residential in there, private homes.
Mr. Shane:
I was on the same track as Mr. Piercecchi. Did you consider
single family residential at any lime?
Mr. Pascual:
No, we haven't done a layout doing a single family to see how
that would tum out.
Mr.Shane:
Would you consider condominiums?
Mr. Pascual:
Detached condominiums or duplexes? These are
condominiums. What we are proposing is multi -residence
condominium.
Mr. Shane:
I was wondering if you might consider cluster housing or
something of that sort where you'd have single family
residences but cluster them. Do you know what I'm saying?
Mr. Pascual:
Okay.
Mr. Shane:
Would you consider that type of development or are you stuck
at RA?
Mr. Pascual:
No, we haven't looked into that yet.
Mr. Shane:
Do you own the property? Is that a contingency sale?
Mr. Pascual:
Spalding owns the property.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
How long has Spalding owned his property?
Mr. De Fiore:
I think in total it has been three years.
Mr. Alanskas:
As the Commissioners said, you are mainly surrounded by R-1,
which is residential. I know if I was living there I certainly would
not want to see a two or three story building in my backyard,
which is why I guess we're all wondering why you wouldn't put
single family homes in there, R-1 or R-2, which would be 60' by
120' or 70' by 120'lots.
20293
Mr. DeFiore:
We'll look into that and see what it would yield and see how that
would all work.
Mr. Pascual:
All right, but I think the main argument is, we were trying to do a
transition zoning.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, what you're trying to do is get the most you can.
Mr. Pascual:
Yes, there is no doubt about that.
Mr. Alanskas:
As one person said years ago, you're trying to put five pounds
of coffee in a three pound can. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
You have a unique piece of property here. It's one of the nicest
pieces of property left in Livonia. A big asset is that you're near
Newburgh Lake. In some instances, you may even overlook
Newburgh Lake. I think you have a real good selling feature for
that reason.
Mr. Pascual:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
But I, like my other fellow commissioners, lean more towards a
single family plotted subdivision instead of condominiums. I
would rather see this developed as a regular subdivision that we
normally see in a city. In this area I dont think you'd have any
problem selling them because of the uniqueness of this parcel,
plus the fact that you're so close to Newburgh lake. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann:
I did have a couple questions. You're showing Gi directly to
the east. Do you have any ownership in that property? Do you
have any tentative purchase agreements on that property?
Mr. Pascual:
No, sir.
Mr. McCann:
My original thought was RA and R-1. The R-1 is just to provide
for the homes to the north. We did have some boundary
problem issues as not all of the homes would qualify for R-1 to
the north as you've got it laid out. That would have to go to he
ZBA or be coreded. Is that cored, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
I think that affects at least one of the parcels, which would
require ZBA approval. If its a lawful conforming parcel as it
exists today, to change the zoning and create any
nonconformity would have to be approved by the Zoning Board
of Appeals. That is cored.
20294
Mr. McCann: So there are issues left there. That C-1 property has been there
for a long time, and there has always been a lot of speculation
as to what it would ever be used for.
Mr. Pascual: I guess we just felt that because it's so nestled between what
we're proposing, which is R-1, and I think based on what's there
right now with those exisfing homes, I think they vary between
60' all the way to 85'. 1 think an R-1 qualifies for a minimum of
60' by 120', correct Mark? I think we can make the R1 work
along the frontage. It sort of provides some type of a transition
from that single family to the multiple, the open space as well as
to the east where there is the commercial, then the multiple,
then the single family. I think that is part of the whole scenario
of this design. Obviously, we 're not really after the maximum
density of what R-8 can provide, but we just want some
flexibility to have larger than 2-1/2 story buildings in some cases
where we might have to be larger than two stories.
Mr. McCann: I understand your concem. You abut C-1 and you are on
Plymouth Road, and to the west of you is some industrial to the
northwest. That's a ways oft. What I see is a parcel that abuts
our only lake in the city. Lakefront property, as you know, is
very valuable. We also have a tremendous amount of greenery,
the park. There are a lot of things that really make this parcel
work. One of the other issues is the City is tying to maintain
some of the RUF land. I guess what we need is a reason why it
should not remain RUF and be developed as RUF, as opposed
to another dassification. Your drawing showing all the
greenbelt around it helps me see it from what I originally
pictured, but I would still like to see even more of a transition,
possibly some R-2 homes to the west with maybe some site
condos or cluster homes, as Mr. Shane suggested, to the east
part of the properly that would abut the potenfial of G7. But I
think everybody up here is giving you an idea that this is a really
prime piece of property in the City and there's no reason to run
out to this kind of density. Unless there are other questons, I
think what we need to do is open it up to the audience. I would
like to remind the audience that on this petition tonight, we have
read everybody's letters. They are included in the packet. We
do have the list of names. So we are going to ask you to keep it
to two minutes or less and try not to reiterate everything put in
the letters.
John Correia, 11684 Roselinda, Unit 10 in the Parkview Site Condo just to the
west of this properly. I am not Edgar Bergman.
Mr. McCann: Are you Charley McCarthy, though?
20295
Mr. Correia:
No. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and
lel you know that I'm really speaking on behalf of a lot of the
residents.
Mr. McCann:
Then we'll give you more than two minutes if you're speaking on
behalf of all of them.
Mr. Correia:
If I could just maybe take the opportunity to ask those that are
part of the opposition to the proposed petition today to stand just
so we can see how many people are here on our behalf this
evening. Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
Mr. Correia:
No booing and hissing. Our message is clear. We don't
support this type of high density development within the vicinity
of our neighborhood. We give the following reasons. As
mentioned earlier, its inconsistent with the Future Land Use and
Master Plan. It's really meant to be a transitional area for the
undeveloped commercial land to the east. The medium density
residential that's specified in the Master Plan says not to exceed
four to 14 units per acre. This proposed rezoning would allow
development to exceed this plan. Also, the rezoning is
inconsistent with the surrounding developments, a mix of R-1
and RUF. Obviously a majority of that is RUF at this time. Also,
the high density nature of the rezoning raises other significant
concerns, which induce the usual noise, congestion and safety
issues, particularly the entrance to this development. It shares
an entrance to the fire station that is across the street. The
water runoff is a particular issue there because we're so close to
Newburgh Lake, and as was mentioned, it's probably the crown
jewel in terms of aquatic recreation here in the City. It was also
recently renovated using a lot of taxpayer money to clean out
some of the toxic sediments and chemicals that were resident in
that lake. We'd hate to see that condition re-establish itself.
Water drainage and management is an issue as well. There is
a lot of water that is currently draining into that area. Many will
say that good engineering practices will allow you to kind of
avoid all these issues. I'm an engineer and I know that we can
engineer good plans, but good plans must be adhered to and
must be followed. We want to make sure that in this case that
would occur. In conclusion, I think everybody would support me
and the association and some of the surrounding developments.
We are not anti -development. We would like to see something
that enhances our property value and the surrounding property
values go into that space. We would welcome an opportunity to
work with the developers to come to a compromise for that
space. It's great to see a view or a picture of what was intended
20296
for that facility; that was not made available prior to this evening.
Ultimately, we just want to assure you that we are looking out
for the best interests of the City as well and the use of that
property and the building and the tax base and the development
of that area. So I'd like to thank you for your time.
Mr. McCann: Thankyou. Is there anybody else?
Frida Gocaj, 37917 Plymouth Road. I hope I can sum this up in two minutes. I
own Lot 540, and I strongly object to this. As you can see, the
back 330 feel is indicated for rezoning and I am not the actual
owner of it due to a legal problem, a legal case is proceeding
right now. So I would ask that the City, at the very minimum,
not include my property in what is gang on right now. It is
landlocked. There is another individual's name on the back 330
feet. There has never been a legal separation of the lot. I pay
the taxes on the whole property. So there is a legal case
pending right now. So I would ask, at the very minimum,
exclude my property until that is taken care of. I also object to
the high rise. It does not go with anything else around us. If at
the bare minimum, if whatever is going to be built, at lead be
consistent with what is around there.
Mr. McCann: You own the north half of Lot 540?
Ms. Gocaj: Yes, I do.
Mr. McCann: All right. And the south half is in contention is what you're
saying?
Ms. Gocaj: There is a legal case pending right now regarding possible
ownership problems and also tax issues as to actually paying
taxes on the whole property, which the whole situation might not
have been legal to begin with after now consulting an attorney
about it. That's all I have to say.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there anybody else? I'm going to close the public
hearing. To the petitioner, it seems to me I've heard a lot from
the Planning Commission, a lot from the residents. Would you
consider a tabling resolution so you could take a look at different
possibilities and mixes? What I would also ask, if we do get a
tabling resolution, that we set up a meeting with the residents
before you get before us to show them your ideas, get their
ideas and see if you can work with them to come up with a
resolution that would work for everybody. Is that fair? Is there a
motion?
20297
Mr. Walsh:
I want to be clear. Is it the petitioners desire to have a tabling
resolution to reconsider this or are you standing firm with this
petition? If we table it, it is so you can down -zone this. Not all
of us have spoken, but I think it's clear that this will be denied
tonight.
Mr. Pascual:
I think what we'd like to do is reconsider our site plan instead of
tabling it and withdraw our petition. We'd like an opportunity to
take a look at the site plan and revise our lhinlang regarding
this.
Mr. McCann:
Filing costs ... Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. They could legally withdraw their petition at this time;
however, we've had the public hearing on the question on the
zoning of the Rb, so it would be appropriate for the
Commission to take action on that part of the request given the
fact, as I understand it, they are not seeking to table this item.
Mr. McCann:
No, I want to make that dear. If you withdraw your petition, that
means that you have to re -file and pay all the filing costs for a
new petition, and we have to go through the process of
publishing and do all the work again on your new petition.
Whereas if we table this, you can amend your petition to a
ditferentzoning.
Mr. Alanskas:
I don't think that is what Mark is saying.
Mr. McCann:
But if we pass on this, it automatically goes to Council. We
don't have a choice. So the issue is, we can send it on to
Council right now. It would probably, from what I'm hearing, gel
a denying resolution.
Mr. Pascual:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
That's choice one. Choice two is you formally withdraw your
petition. Therefore you'll start over from scratch and have to re-
file. The third option is that we table it for a period that you think
is reasonable to gel with the residents in the area, gel with your
design people and come up with an alternative plan that we can
review at that time and decide then whether to send it on to the
Council with an approving or denying resolution. My thought is
that people who work together end up with a better product and
that the residents will be happier with the outcome. I have one
other altemative. We can deny it, send it on to Council, and if
you want to withdraw it before you get there, that's your choice.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think that's the best thing to do.
20298
Mr. Pascual: Let's do it that way then.
Mr. McCann: Let's go. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 15, 2003, on
Petition 2003-02-01-10, submitted by Larry DeFiore, on behalf
of Spalding Properties, LLC, requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh
Road and Roselinda Road in the Southeast % of Section 30
from RUF to R-8 and R-1, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-02-01-
10 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and
not in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses
in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an
unacceptable increase in the population density in the
subject area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will allow for an
intensity of use that would be detrimental to the adjacent
single family residential uses in the area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning will not represent a
reasonable and logical zoning plan inasmuch as it would
allow for greater building heights and higher density than
would be appropriate for the area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
development that will generale an undue amount of
additional traffic in the 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: We are open for discussion now. Mr. Taormina, if this petition
for R8 goes to Council and the petitioner reduces it to R-7 and
R-2 or R-1, since it's already been published and we've held the
public hearing on the higher density R8, the Council could go
ahead and approve it however they feel is appropriate at that
time without returning it back to us. Is that correct?
20299
Mr. Taormina:
Any change of zoning to a classification of lesser intensity could
be considered under this petition as it's been notified. Al least
that's been the practice in the past.
Mr. Shane:
That was my problem. It could pass through us and we'd never
have the chance to review it. I'd table it and have them come
back if they will do that.
Mr. McCann:
Are you making a motion?
Mr. Shane:
I will do that.
Mr. McCann:
We have alternative motion to table this. Is there support?
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted,
R was
#0434-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 15, 2003, on
Petition 2003-02-01-10, submitted by Larry De Fiore, on behalf
of Spalding Properties, LLC, requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh
Road and Roselinda Road in the Southeast % of Section 30
from RUF to RA and R-1, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that Petition 2003-02-01-10 be tabled until
the Regular Meeting of May 6, 2003.
Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann:
Now we need to pick a date. Our intent is not to avoid the
Council looking at it. I think the Council believes that if we both
gel a chance to look at any amendments that are going to go
before them, that we end up with a better product when we have
more input.
Mr. Taormina:
In that the applicant has not requested the tabling in this
instance, we will have to bring this item back within the time
limitation specified under law.
Mr. McCann:
So that gives us ... the time of filing on this ...
Mr. Walsh:
While Mark is looking that up ... because a tabling motion has
the effect of squashing discussion, I want to tell the residents we
appreciate your level of professionalism in your correspondence
and through your spokesman tonight. You would have had no
idea that we would agree with your position, but you came in a
20300
cooperative manner and very respectable, and I, for one,
appreciate that.
Mr. McCann: Considering that the next regular meeting is May 6...
Mr. Alanskas: That's no good because you know I won't be here nor will Bill.
Mr. McCann: We II have a quorum and if we have to come within the 60 days,
I think that's the first one, unless we can do it on the 20"'.
Mr. Taormina: The application was received in the Office of the City Clerk on
February 28, but the question is when does the dock start
ticking.
Mr. Pieroecchi: The clock starts when we get it at the study meeting. We have
60 days from thereon.
Mr. Walsh: Isn't it from the filing deadline?
Mr. McCann: The statute says that from the time that the staff has d. I
thought it was 90 days.
Mr. Taormina: Well, it was.
Mr. Alanskas: It was changed.
Mr. Pieroecchi: If we went by the time the Clerk gets it, Mark, it could go around
the Christmas season and that 60 days could be gone before
we even see it.
Mr. La Pine: Mr. Chairman, isn't it true that if the pefitioner agrees to more
than 60 days ...
Mr. McCann: Well, it's up to the petitioner. The soonest available date is May
6. Is that date okay with you?
Mr. Pascual: That would be fine.
Mr. McCann: All right. We'll reconvene on May 6. The study meeting will be
on April 28. You will need to have any modifications you're
looking at to the staff by April 25r". That will give them time to
go review it. I would suggest that you try to get with the
members that are in the audience tonight. You might want to
give them a number that they can contact you at or their
representative. All right?
Mr. Pascual: Okay. Thank you very much.
20301
Mr. La Pine: Just one thing. I think the audience needs to know that they will
not get another notice of this.
Mr. McCann: May 6 is the only notice you'll get, which is right now. Thank
you.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-03-02-04 QUIZNO'S SUBS
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-03-02-04 submitted by Kishore Muvva, on behalf of
Epicurean Ventures LLC d/b/a Quizno's Subs, requesting
waiver use approval to operate a Quizno's Subs and Salads
(limited service restaurant with sit down and carry out service) in
the Meri-Five Plaza located on the north side of Five Mile Road
between Merman Road and Bainbridge Avenue (31172 Five
Mile Road) in the Southwest''/.of Section 14.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 18, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-refemnced petition. No additional right-of-
way dedication is required at this time. The legal description is
approved. We have no objection to the proposal." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March
24, 2003, which reads as follows : 'This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to establish a
limited service restaurant on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 19, 2003,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the attached plans
in connection with a proposal to establish a limited service
restaurant located in the shopping center on the northeast
comer of Five Mile and Merriman Roads. We have no
recommendations or objections to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March
18, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
20302
March 14, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The equipment plan has
an unlabeled/undetailed rear room. We would be interested in
what this is. (2) No signage has been reviewed. (3) As this
space is a change of use, it must be fully barrier free compliant
including the front entry. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Gary Ghandi, 2139 Clitfside Dnve, Wixom, Michigan.
Mr. McCann:
Is there something additional you'd like to tell us about the
petition?
Mr. Ghandi:
Basically, I would like to address two or three points. It says the
"equipment plan has an unlabeled/undetailed rear room."
Quizno's actually recommends an 1,800 square foot space for
their restaurant. We have around 2,000 square feet So we just
want to use that as an office space. We just have a desk, chair
and computer to run the day -today operations. That is what we
are going to use the extra space for. "No signage has been
reviewed." Before we just go for the signage, what we will do is
apply for City approval. Once the City approves that, then we
can put the signage on. We're not there yet. And the third one,
'fully barrier flee compliant,' we'll make sure we will be
compliant because this time we just submitted the plans. Once
we get to that stage, we'll make sure that we are absolutely
compliant with all the City rules.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you in the restaurant business? Do you have another
restaurant or is this your first one?
Mr. Ghandi:
Actually, we have another restaurant in Canton, Michigan.
Mr. LaPine:
In Canton?
Mr. Ghandi:
Yes. That's also a Quizno's Subs.
Mr. LaPine:
As you well know, in that particular shopping center we have a
number of restaurants. Do you feel that is a viable location with
all the other competition within that center?
Mr. Ghandi:
Absolutely. I think Quizno's Subs is totally different from what
the competition is in that location. I think we have a very good
20303
product, and we're absolutely certain that it's going to be a good
Mr. La Pine:
Well, you have an excellent menu. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, are you the owner of the mall?
Mr. Ghandi:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the owner here this evening? The reason I'm asking is
because I was there today and spoke to one of the lessees. I
don't want to say who it is, but he stated that he knows for a fact
in the lease of one of the businesses there, it states that they
would not be putting in a sub shop in that area. I found that
quite interesting. That's why I asked if you were the owner of
the mall. I'd like to get that danfed because it's interesting that
might be in there where he could state that a certain business
could not be in that mall. And it came from a very good source,
so I dont think the person who told me that was lying. I just
wondered if we would have any ramifications by proving this if
that is so.
Mr. McCann:
It would be a contractual agreement between that leasing tenant
and his landlord and damages he would suffer.
Mr. Alanskas:
You're only going to have 29 seats, is that correct?
Mr. Ghandi:
F�acUy.
Mr. Alanskas:
And what are your hours of business going to be?
Mr. Ghandi:
It will be from 1100 until 9:00 in the evening.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many days a week?
Mr. Ghandi:
Seven days a week.
Mr. Alanskas:
Seven days a week. All nght. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, I will close the public
hearing.
20304
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#0435-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 15, 2003, on
Petition 2003-03-02-04, submitted by Kishore Muwa, on behalf
of Epicurean Ventures LLC d/b/a Quizno's Subs, requesting
waiver use approval to operate a Quizno's Subs and Salads
(limited service restaurant with sit down and carry out service) in
the Mem-Five Plaza located on the north side of Five Mile Road
between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue (31172 Five
Mile Road) in the Southwest I/ of Section 14, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2003-03-02-04 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no
more than 30 seats;
2. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated March 18, 2003, from the Inspection Department
shall be resolved to that departments satisfaction:
- That information relative to the proposed use of the
unlabeled/undetailed rear room shown on the
equipment plan shall be provided at the time of
application for building permits;
- That signage for the proposed restaurant, which shall
fully conform to the regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance, shall be reviewed by the Inspection
Department; and
- That this space shall be fully barrier free compliant,
including the front entry, since this is a change in use
group from the previous tenant;
forthe following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
20305
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, dedared
the motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted.
It will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-03-02-05 BENNETT DONALDSON
Mr. Piercecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-03-02-05, submitted by Bennet Donaldson, requesting
waiver use approval to expand the existing building in order to
operate a medical office on property located on the south side of
Eight Mile Road between Hickory Lane and Meadowview Lane
in the Northwest %of Section 6.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 17, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description is
correct as presented. No additional right -0f -way dedication is
required at this time. We have no objection to the proposal,
however, we will require that the parking lot be drained into an
enclosed storm system with an outlet to the system at Eight Mile
Road. Further, detention facilities will be required in accordance
with the Wayne County's Storm Water Management
Ordinance." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated March 24, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to expand the existing office building in order to operate
a medical office on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated March 28, 2003, which reads
20306
as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal to expand the existing building in order to operate a
medical office. We recommend that a stop sign be installed at
the driveway for exiting vehicles. We have no other
recommendations for this plan." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 21, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 14, 2003, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) The parking calculation used is incorrect. This
Petition as proposed will require 56 parking spaces plus one
space for each employee and professional person. Thus either
the parking must be increased or a variance obtained for the
deficient parking from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (2) This
Petition will also require approval from the Historical
Preservation Commission prior to any permits being issued, as
it is a duly recorded historic site. This Department has no
further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next item is from
Kip Bonds, 38560 Morningstar, dated March 3, 2003, which
reads as follows: "Members of the Livonia Mills Subdivision
have been made aware of a new potential buyer and his plan for
the subject property. The residents were once again given
information on plans to expand the building on this property. I'm
witting this letter to officially go on record as being opposed to
this plan. 1 wish to go beyond opposing this specific
development and also request that the waiver use that was
granted several years ago for the use of this property be
rescinded and the zoning be restored to its original RUE 1
request that this letter be read into the record at both the City
Planning Commission and subsequent City Council public
meetings when and if any plan for the subject property reaches
that stage. 1 also request a written response from each of the
Commission and Council members stating their individual
positions on this matter and a summary of their reasons. 1 have
included a drawing/map of the subject property and some of the
surrounding area to graphically illustrate that the property is now
located in an 100°% residential area and in fact is immediately
bordered by private single family residences. The map also
shows that the nearest commerciatbusiness properties are
located 0.5 miles to the east at the intersection of Eight Mile and
Newburgh, and at; miles to the west beyond P275 expressway.
Allowing this property to continue with the waiver use places a
non-residential property use within the bounds of the Livonia
Mills Subdivision. This is the exact definition of spot zoning and
a prime example of placing a business in the middle of a
neighborhood. As can be seen from the drawing, the proposed
entrance is not on Eight Mile, but onto the residential side street
20307
(Meadowview). The original waiver use was granted as a
compromise to a complete rezoning request several years ago.
At this time the adjoining property to the west along Eight Mile
and the nearest property to the east along Eight Mile (across
Meadowview) were both vacant. There was some chance that
this entire strip of five lots on Eight Mile may have had potential
as commercial property. In recent years, the three lots to the
west have all been developed as single family private
residences. The single lot to the east will have a single family
home constructed this spring. There is no justification for the
subject property to retain its waver use. To close, 1 would like to
point out that when our fouryear-old granddaughteris playing in
our yard, 1 currently feel comfortable that she has the safety of
being in a neighborhood where 1 know the neighbors by sight
and recognize their vehicles. This would not be the case if a
business were to be allowed to reside within our neighborhood."
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bennett Donaldson, J. B. Donaldson Co., Inc., 39300 W. 12 Mile Road, Suite
200, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331. I'm here tonight to ask
for the waiver use approval to operate a family medical practice.
We are not asking to rezone the property. Dr. Pierce has been
located in Farmington Hills for the past 15 years. He is currently
located off of Haggerty. He is a family practitioner. He has
seven employees in his current practice. He would be the only
doctor to practice in this office if it were approved. When Dr.
Pierce first encountered the Simmons property he said to
himself, this is what he always wanted. He always wanted to be
a family practitioner, part of a neighborhood, part of a
community and, therefore, we've gone the effort to try to
achieve that. This is exactly how he identifies himself as a
family doctor in an old country -type home. Yes, it does need to
be expanded and we do need to add some parking, but other
than that, that sort of holds true to the old family doctor format.
As you can see, this is the existing house that's visible from
Eight Mile. This is another side view of that house. What you
would be seeing from Eight Mile is this elevation here, which is
being blocked by the current girth of the house. We are really
try to get the same windows, the same flair of the house, you
know, flair, trusses and things like that to keep the same
continuity in looks of the current structure. As far as the site is
concerned, I was a little confused as far as the parking was
concerned. We had spoke about the parking and since Dr.
Pierce is a single practitioner in this practice, we were under the
impression that we would be subject to a different parking
requirement instead of the 56 spaces that was required. I
20308
believe our original calculation was 1 to 200. 1 believe Allen and
Mark also concurred with that evaluation, but that could be
incorrect as we stand here today. But that was our last
impression. Since our first drawing, we had showed the parking
quite a bit closer to the residences, and there was no bene at
the time. We decided to voluntarily add this berm in along with
the plantings and to push the parking closer to Eight Mile Road
to diminish any possible future impact to the residents. As far
as the traffic is concemed, there were some issues brought up
about additional traffic in the neighborhood. Its a hard case to
make to say that people would come in, travel through the
neighborhood, swing back around and pull in, or, I don't know
the name of the street, just further west of this drive ... come
into that street, drive around the neighborhood and then double
back into this parking lot. I'm sure everybody has gone to the
doctor before. You go to your appointment and you leave. The
last thing you want to do is . you know, you've got
appointments, you've got things to do. Its usually in the middle
of the day when you get an appointment and you want to get out
of there. So, I dont amcipate any sod of negative impact to the
residents as far as additional traffic is concerned. We would be
happy to put some sod of measures on the street - maybe a
speed bump of sorts or a sign that says "private residences' to
further encourage people not to travel through the
neighborhood. We fell we were being pretty committed to
seeking the residents' opinions. We sent out a flyer to all 46
residences in Livonia Estates to get their feedback, get their
opinion on the project. We sent an existing survey, a site plan
showing the project and the elevations of the project to
everybody, along with a little note that said if you couldn't attend
our meeting that we had scheduled, to receive that feedback,
just check the box and send it back to us in the self-addressed
envelope that we had sent them. We got roughly 16 responses
back. We had about five or six positives, and 10 or 11 that
didn't support it. When we had our meeting at our offices, we
had one family show up out of 46, so we felt that there wasn't a
whole lot of opposition at the time. I would also like to address
one other issue regarding the value. Comments were made
that they felt that this development would diminish the value of
their homes. I would argue that by saying that if we were going
to invest three quarters of a million dollars to improve this site,
keep its historical relevance, that I'd be confused or I would not
understand why people would think that would interfere with the
values of their homes. In dosing, Iwould just like to say that if
it's not us to be approved for this waiver, then who would it be?
I have an observation that I want to share with you. I know that
these residents would want another residential development
there. Somebody to buy that site and build a couple homes
20309
there. As a builder, I look at things from an economic
standpoint. Does it make sense for a builder to go in there and
pay half a million dollars for this site, build a 2,500 or 3,000
square fool home for $150.00 a foot, and then have $250,000 in
land cost, $450,000 in building costs, a $700,000 cost basis on
your building .... Again, I'm not saying those are the costs.
I'm not saying it can't be done differently. I'm not saying that
you cant divide it into a higher density to reduce your costs. I'm
just saying that it would be a hard case to make to justify those
kinds of expenses to make a residential home development
work there, especially to pay those kinds of dollars to be located
on Eight Mile Road. I would also suggest to the Planning
Commission that you have an individual here in Dr. Pierce that
is willing to work with the neighborhood, wants to be part of the
community, wants in the worse way to be part of this
neighborhood, and is willing to do the things on the site and on
a voluntary basis to make it better for residents. Again, if it's not
us, who is that right person for that spot? I don't know how to
answer that question. But I do know that there is currently a
user in there that is operating under a non -approved use. I think
we have the opportunity here to approve a doctor who wants to
comply, wants to conform, wants to build something that is
historically significant, keep the same look, buffer the residents
and take into consideration their concems. And I think the
residents would agree that we are trying to take into
consideration their concems. And lastly, again, if not us, who
then? So I thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, does the doctor own the property?
Mr. Donaldson:
It is currently under contract. He does not own it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Its on a contingency?
Mr. Donaldson:
That's correct. Contingency upon approval.
Mr. Alanskas:
You said he's been in Farmington Hills for over 18 years?
Mr. Donaldson:
Fifteen.
Mr. Alanskas:
Fifteen years, okay. And you said he wants to make a three-
quarter million investment?
Mr. Donaldson:
That's correct. Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
How long would it take him as an individual doctor to get back
his investment if he was in there?
20310
Mr. Donaldson: Well, the dodorhasthose figures.
Mr. Alanskas: Fora one -doctor office?
Mr. Donaldson: Yes. The doctor has those figures. I think anybody who knows
what his return of investment is going to be, it's going to be Dr.
Pierce. So he's comfortable with those numbers, and I don't
know d...
Mr. Alanskas: Is the doctor here this evening?
Mr. Donaldson: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a couple questions for him.
Mr. Donaldson: Absolutely.
Keith J. Pierce, MD, 21800 Haggerty, Suite 212, Northville, Michigan 48167.
How are you? Just so you know, the office sits in the four
comers. I'm at Eight Mile and Haggerty, so I'm officially sitting
in Farmington Hills; I have a Northville address; I look out the
window at Livonia and Novi. Fifty percent of my patients live in
Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas:
Will you be accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients there?
Dr. Pierce:
We accept all patients.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason why I'm asking is because my own personal doctor,
and other doctors I've talked to, as I understand it,
Medicare/Medicaid has cut out a lot of things and they are
losing their incoming dollars by 40%. Is that true?
Dr. Pierce:
Right now, its in front of the federal government. The AMA is
trying to revert R.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you are making 40% less than what you did in the past 10 or
12 years?
Dr. Pierce:
Forty percent on one particular insurance.
Mr. Alanskas:
Pardon me?
Dr. Pierce:
It would be 40% of one particular insurance.
Mr. Alanskas:
Right. But do you have a lot ofthese patients?
20311
Dr.
Pierce:
I have a multiple makeup. Patients who lend to be plus or
minus 15 years your age. I'm 43 years old. My patients
typically tend to be plus or minus 15 years, so I have about 15%
Medicare.
Mr.
Alanskas:
All right. Thank you very much.
Dr.
Pierce:
You asked the question about how can I afford it? The rent of
my building right now would be less than what it would be to
own this building.
Mr.
Alanskas:
I see. Thank you.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
Good evening, doctor. What daily volume of patients do you
normallyhave? I'm just trying to analyze this.
Dr.
Pierce:
We work Monday through Thursday about 9 am to 6 pm, and
two half days, Friday and Saturday. The full days we see
anywhere from 25 to 35 people; half days, anywhere from 15 to
20.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
You're going awfully fast for me. But daily is anywhere from 25
to a high of 90. Is that what you're telling me?
Dr.
Pierce:
No. Twenty-five to 35.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
How many employees will you have?
Dr.
Pierce:
Approximately seven.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
Hours?
Dr.
Pierce:
Approximately 9 am to 6 pm on Monday through Thursday, 9
am to 1 pm on Friday and Saturday.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
So you have a six-day operation. Do you ever bring in people
for doing x-rays?
Dr.
Pierce:
Yes.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
You have doctors come in and read them, or do you read them
yourself.
Dr.
Pierce:
I read them and we have somebody who co -reads them who
they are sent to.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
In other words, you dont bring another doctor in?
20312
Dr. Pierce:
No.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. You are really putting a substamal increase on that
facility in volume. You're practically doubling the size. Do you
have to add all that? Maybe some more parlang. If you have
seven employees, you only got 26 spots now. You're down to
19 spots.
Dr. Pierce:
When you figure four or five people come an hour, that leaves
you 12 empty spots every hour. With the site, the reason we
had to add the extra 3,000 square feet is because we wanted to
leave the integrity of the historical building. We did not want to
change it at all. So to do that, we needed to added a little extra
square feel. We discussed that with the Historical Society.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Your builder brought up an interesting question. He said, "If its
not us, who?" That's a dam good question. I must admit that
initially I thought this was really the best package we could ever
gel for that, but I'm spending a lot of time on it. Now I have
problems with it. Basically, what it boils down to is if we grant
you this waiver, it is tantamount to spot zoning since the waiver
use goes with the land. This piece of property will be defined as
a professional office restricted to a one doctor operation. I have
a little trouble with that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaPine:
The existing pole barn is going to be demolished. Correct?
Dr. Pierce:
Right.
Mr. La Pine:
What isthe size ofthatpole bam?
Dr. Pierce:
I think its roughly 20'x 20'.
Mr. LaPine:
In reality, we're adding onto the building, but we're actually
taking down part of one building. You're going to have just one
entrance into the parking lot. Is that right? And then one out, so
when they come out, they just turn lett and gel back on Fight
Mile Road. That's what we're hoping, anyways.
Dr. Pierce:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
So there's no reason really for anybody to have to go through
the subdivision because you're the first building there.
Dr. Pierce:
No, not that I could think of.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, prior to when Mr. Helmkamp owned the property, what
was the property zoned? Was it always RUF?
20313
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not aware that it's been anything other than RUF, but we
can investigate that.
Mr. LaPine:
Because you know when I look at the record, Mr. Helmkamp
operated a lawyers office. So its been used as a professional
building since Mr. Helmkamp was there. Then you can say that
the grooming business plus the veterinary office is a
professional business. And then the photographic studio went
in there. So over the years, it really hasn't changed its use. Its
been used as a professional building if you want to classify the
other two as professionals.
Mr. Taormina:
I think the City records will show that the structure was first
utilized for professional office
purposes and the veterinary clinic
or grooming operation some time
in the 1980's. So as far as I
know at this point, any time prior to that it was used just as a
residential structure.
Mr. LaPine:
And so basically for 20 years its been operated as a
professional office, since the 1980's. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Let's assume someone wanted to buy that property and build a
home there. They couldn't demolish that home, could they?
Mr. Taormina:
There would be restrictions for the modification, including the
demolition of that structure. There are certain requirements that
have to be mel with the Historical Commission.
Mr. LaPine:
I know they can do any renovation they want inside the building,
but any outside renovations have to be done in the period that
the home was built. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
That is basically correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Right. So for somebody to buy that parcel and modify It, It is
going to be an awfully costly operation. I've been out there
twice, three or four times during the years when we were
looking at this case. Do you make your appointments by certain
hours, or is it like most doctors? You get there and they put you
in a room, and six other people are in rooms waiting to see the
doctor, and the doctor goes from room to room. Is that the way
you operate?
Dr. Pierce:
Why don't you come by now? We've got very negative
connotations about physicians. You just described one of them.
20314
When you come to my office and you drive up, you gel the
feeling that you have an old style doctor fere. And that's what
we're going to give you. We're going to give you old-fashioned
care. We're actually going to care about you. We're actually
going to care that you're in a room, and we're actually going to
make a difference in the lives of the people who live in Livonia.
That's my goal. And the best way to do it, I think, is from this
house.
Mr. LaPine:
I think you said you have seven employees. Is that right?
Dr. Pierce:
They may not all be there at the same time.
Mr. LaPine:
Somebody handles the insurance, a receptionist, somebody
who takes blood and things of that nature, an x-ray technician.
Dr. Pierce:
It usually takes five people all at the same time. That's what we
figure. We figure five people working, plus me is six. We
typically see five people an hour. Somebody brings a friend,
somebody brings an extra person. Fourteen to 15 is possible
typically.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you, Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. McCann:
I have a couple questions, Doctor. I know people in thatarea.
I'm concerned about expanding the use. I know some of the
issues that were brought up by letter tonight to the Planning
Commission was that there shouldn't be any waiver use. I want
to make it clear that the issue before us tonight is not whether or
not there should be a waiver use. The waiver use is existing at
least right now for the animal veterinary. Is that the current
waiver use or is it photographic studio?
Mr. Taormina:
There's been two previous grants involving this properly. The
first was the use for the law office. Secondly, it was for the
veterinary dinic.
Mr. McCann:
Exactly. But it was my understanding that when the veterinary
clinic waiver use was approved, that the use as a law office
ceased to exist. That waiver use would no longer be effective
since it's been abandoned.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, I don't know that it would be treated the same as a non-
conforming use. Whether or not it was abandoned, the same
rules would apply because any waiver use approval runs with
the land. Therefore, I don't believe that it would be precluded
from being re -used as a law office. I'd have to ask that question
of our legal department.
20315
Mr. McCann:
All right. The next issue I'm looking at is what if we have an
expansion of the waiver use from the veterinary hospital to a
private practice physician and the expansion of the building,
adding additional square feet. Now, I like the fact that you're
going to put that much money into it. When someone puts that
much money into it, theyre going to maintain it and make it look
nice and have some pride in it, especially if you're going to be
working in it. What I do have concerns about, though, are five
exam rooms, a procedure room, and a consultation room. I
have just an open office, a doctor's office, a staff area, business
office, a managers office, a records office, besides the waiting
room, lab and just general office in the back for employees. It
sure appears to me that if you're going to see five patients an
hour, that it's set up more for at least two doctors, not one.
Dr. Pierce:
Strange guy. I've got seven rooms now and I whet it out by
myself. That's the pace now for over 10 years.
Mr. McCann:
I understand that you wouldn't use the procedure room probably
the same time your using the exam rooms.
Dr. Pierce:
The procedure room might be used for an ultrasound. We do
ultrasounds there, so a patient might come for an ultrasound.
Or we may be setting up somebody for a procedure while I'm
seeing another patient.
Mr. McCann:
Mark, can the waiver use be specific as to the number of
physicians that are using the facility?
Mr. Taormina:
It would have to be in this case, due to the fact that there would
not be adequate parking to support more than one physician, at
least according to our ordinance.
Mr. McCann:
We'd be limited to the one physician, 25 to 30 patients for five
days. Correct? Well, the number of patients wouldn't be
limited, but it would be one physician. Whatever he decides.
As a family practitioner, I dont know how many he would handle
at that time. I have one other issue. You say at least 50% of
your patients are from the Livonia area.
Dr. Pierce:
Al least. One hundred percent of the patients come pretty much
from the four cities of Northville, Novi, Livonia and Farmington
Hills. I'm right across the street from Lifetime Health Fitness.
I'm pretty much entrenched in the community. I've just been on
the otherside ofthe street.
20316
Mr. McCann:
Mark, did you take a look at the landscape plan? They've
moved the parking lot north towards Eight Mile and the berm
around the neighbors. Is that something that we would bring
back for the staff to review?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and I'll tell you why it would probably be wise for us to take
another look at that. Number one, after hearing the comments
from the residents, I think drainage will be a concern. It was
already indicated in the Engineering letter that they would have
to meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management
Ordinance with respect to storm water detention, and I'm not
sure how that's being accomplished on the site. If its
something that they could do structurally with oversized pipes
beneath the panting lot, that's one thing. If on the other hand,
they need to provide for that storm water detention in the form of
a surface basin, then that would impact the landscaping, and
we'd like to know how that would be positioned on the site. But
otherwise, you're right. The berm is shown along portions of the
southwest property lines with landscaping at the entrance.
There would be trees added to the lop of that berth and,
generally speaking, all of the other landscaped areas would
remain as is. If you're familiar with the site, there's quite a bit of
existing vegetation scattered across the site, and it appears that
its their intention to keep much of that vegetation in tad.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition? We'd asked if you could to
keep your comments to two minutes.
Rodger Matthews, 38530 Morningstar. On behalf of my wife, Emma Lou, and I. I
too wrote a letter February 8 to the Planning Commission. The
Zoning Board of Appeals, City Council and Mayor Kirksey all got
a copy. I wrote it to Mr. Bennett Donaldson. I have a copy of it
here dated April 15 to be applicable to tonight. I'd like this to
also go into the record.
Mr. McCann:
That will go into the record. It will be sent on to Council as part
of this record this evening.
Mr. Matthews:
Thank you. We're definitely opposed to any further expansion
on the properly that's located there. We've repeatedly given
that position. I try to have some respect for some of the
personalized notes from the petitioner. But you know, to me,
this is becoming something like a late night telemarketing call. If
not me, who? Nobody. If not me, who? Nobody, other than a
residential family moving back onto that piece of property.
Three thousand additional square feel on a building that's
existing there — excuse me. Excuse me. A driveway loading
20317
out onto Meadowview? Load the driveway onto Eight Mile and
see what that does for Eight Mile. Okay? That's crazy. Next
we're going to be putting up a light at our intersection. Its
already difficult getting in and out of the subdivision. My son is
just getting his drivers license and we're advising him, "Please
do not try and pull onto Meadowview if you're heading west on
Eight Mile. Please go to Hickory Lane, is the name of the street,
and then tum left. It will be much more safer for you. Its
already hazardous trying to get into our subdivision. Business
opportunity on that location is not what that is there for today. I
don't like to bring up an old wound, but it sounds like the
business that's currently in there needs to be evacuated
because they don't belong there. I keep hearing that every time
I come for a new proposal for somebody that wants to do
something with that properly. If the groomer is no longer there,
why is a photography studio there? I don't understand that. So,
we're opposed without going into a lot of detail. We remain
opposed, so your "no" vole would be respected and
appreciated. Thankyou.
Julie Janik, 20535 Meadowview. I live at the adjacent property to Bak
Photography, and I'd like to say that I'm opposed. I'm opposed
for a variety of reasons. And by the way, I was one of the
families that did meet with Dr. Pierce and Mr. Donaldson. That
happened to be a day when there was seven inches of snow at
5:00 so I understand why a lot of the families didn't make it out
there. We made it in my truck; we used the four-wheel drive.
There was quite a bit of conversation as to what was going on
with the landscaping, and some changes were said that were
going to be made. It compromised us having objections with
our driveway being right next to it, 200 and some odd feet long,
along the whole length of it. I had some concerns about coming
in and out of our house, and how that would affect us with
having 30 extra vehides in the yard next to us. I had pretty
specific concems about the upper elevation, the upstairs of the
home having windows facing my backyard where my kids swim
and play and jump on the trampoline. My five year old in the
front of our house playing and having these vehicles up and
down the street. You're not talking about just adding 25 patients
a day or 45 patients a day and six days a week this coming into
some small numbers. You're talking about over 900 by your
calculations alone coming next door to my house. You're
talking about a parking situation which faces my driveway and
all these people coming there. I objected to Bak Photography
being there, but that really didn't seem to matter. There was an
opinion in the Board here that it was not in there right, and you
opposed it. We did appreciate your favor on that. But the point
we're trying to make here is that we don't want anything other
20318
than remdemal here. You're talking about some high costs for
putting up a home there. Those parcels are half an acre apiece.
You could put three homes up there. If the Historical Society
approves of that house, they're not living next to it. Why don't
they put it at Greenmead? They can move it and put up more
houses. Something else can be done. It can be residential. He
does not have to run a business because it's an historical house
or vice versa. As far as it being professional, being a
veterinarian, my husband runs Spas Electrical. I do accounfing.
What do you call professional services? He's not considered, I
am? There's a difference, a distinction between those types of
services as well. And I do have a four year old who will be
opening my back door and right there he has his back door. He
says that he's going to have a bene with some trees up there.
As far as for these 15 year old patients, he's going to be a family
doctor. He wants to go back to an old style family doctor. Do
15 years olds care? Do they know what an old style family
doctor is? That's great that he has this integrity that he's trying
to bring to himself and to his business, and he's going to make
three quarters of a million dollars. Whatever. I live next door.
My house is going down in value. I worked and lived in this city
most of my life and my husband as well, as well as my
neighbors, and we put every lax dollar we make into this city
and our business. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised I'm not
coming to you with that other group that was here tonight. We
chose this house over that house only because we were
advised that that business was never going to go b anything
other than what it is there today. My concem when I bought that
house was whether or not there were going to be wedding
services or chapels because of this photographer. I was
assured, no, no, none of that. Well, I'm confused. I dont know
what's going on here. I don't know the history. I asked the
history of this house, how it originally got its first start, whatever
service it is. And I'm sorry if this place is giving you all a
headache, but imagine living next door to it and trying to figure
all this out. Imagine thinking that you have a little bit of private
ownership in your properly and then, "hey, he lives in
Farmington. He's a doctor. He can come in and take my
properly and run it down" I don't think he wants to take my
property. He just wants to live there and be a good neighbor.
What was really nice was that this guy came in the front door.
You know, he sent us some nice notes and asked us to come
there, as opposed to the previous owner who came in the back
door. I do appreciate that. He's given us the consideration. I
do think he's respectable. I would like to extend a good
neighbor policy. I asked if we could consider things like coming
in off of Eight Mile so I didn't have to deal with traffic and the
window upstairs facing my backyard and things like that. I tried
20319
to come up with some solutions as well. I just don't know what
there is. In my opinion, I'd just like the whole thing rescinded if
that's the way we could go about doing this, but apparently we
can't. But something else has to be done because I don't think
you're going to get any rest from the community.
Mr. LaPine: Can I ask you a quick question?
Mrs. Janik: Sure.
Mr. LaPine: You're on Meadowview Drive? What is your lot number? Are
you Lot 8?
Mrs. Janik: I'm right next to it. 20535 Meadowview.
Mr. LaPine: You're right across the street from that new two-story house
that's being built?
Mrs. Janik: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: And you're worried about this house being two stories or loolting
in at your swimming pool. Wont that two-story house be able to
see your swimming pool?
Mrs. Janik: Sir, the two-story house across the street is facing the front
public view. The house next to me is facing my back private
residence. And we're not talking apples and apples here.
We're not talking a residence versus a residence. You're talking
a business versus a residence. You're talking strangers as
opposed to some one I going to spend a good deal of my time
getfing to know, as I have my other neighbors.
Mr. LaPine: I'm just trying to figure out your point of view here because I
noticed the house across the street abuts right up against a
park, I guess because there's a baseball diamond right behind
that house.
Mrs. Janik: There's a church and that lot is seldom ever used. However, we
do wander back there. There's a little pond back there. Its a
real quiet neighborhood.
Mr. LaPine: I know the neighborhood well. I've been through it many, many
times.
Mrs. Janik: Four times?
Mr. LaPine: Pardon?
20320
Mrs. Janik:
You said you were through the neighborhood four times?
Mr. LaPine:
I've been through the neighborhood at least four maybe five
times.
Mrs. Janik:
Okay. Well, I've been through there for 365 days times five
years.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm just trying to tell you. I'm not trying to be smart.
Mrs. Janik:
Okay.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm just telling you I checked it out every time something went in
there.
Mrs. Janik:
No, I didn't take it as that, sir. I'm just trying to make sure that I
know my fads.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm trying to figure out exactly where you live in relationship to
this house. That's all.
Mrs. Janik:
Righlnexlloil. Rightnexttoft.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mrs. Janik:
And it is a house. It is that.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mrs. Janik:
Okay. Thank you. Thank you all.
Shawn Janik, 20535 Meadowview. I know its late.
Mr. McCann:
Its okay.
Mr. Janik:
I'm sure a lot of you have seen us before. There are some
concerns that we have. Obviously, we're opposed to this. Mr.
Donaldson and Dr. Pierce don't live in the neighborhood. They
don't see the traffic that we gel right now coming from strangers
that make wrong turns, and Balks facility which in some cases is
overfilled. I get his customers coming into my driveway. I
apologize. I'm nervous. I'm also speaking for another resident
that couldn't make it. One of the biggest problems that we have
is that we get quite a bit of turnaround traffic, and even though
they don't think ifs a problem, it really is. I don't see any
difference between a 7-11 and this doctors office. There's
going to be strangers coming into our neighborhood on a
regular basis. We don't gel any relief. Right now, like
20321
somebody had already mentioned, Rodger, that coming in and
out of our driveway, where our street is is very difficult at this
time. Its going to be even more difficult when we get more
traffic that's coming and going. If any of you would like to try
and make a left hand tum at around 5:00 ... there is a hill there.
I cant tell you how many times that there's been accidents
where somebody is trying to pull inside and hits another car.
Two incidents I did witness where accidents happened where
you just can't see the people merging into the left lane. People
are trying to make a left into the Farmington Hills area, us trying
to make a left into our neighborhood. Again, I know we don't
have time, but right now with Bak in there, there's nobody
policing his actions. Who is going to police Dr. Pierce when he
has more doctors come it? Three years from now when he
wants to build even a bigger facility, what's going to happen
then? It seems to me that if you allow this to happen, there's no
stopping him. What do we do? We check his payroll? How do
we do that to see how many doctors are actually working in the
facility? You know, I own a business. My ultimate goal is for my
business to grow. He's a doctor, but it's a business. And I'm
sure he wants his business to grow. His parking will eventually
start to get full. Where are they going to park? They're going to
park on the public street which none of us can do anything
about because it is a public street. We're looking down the
road. Say hypothetically three years down the road, that starts
happening. Who do I call to complain about it? Icall the City.
Then the next alternative is for him to build a bigger parking lot.
Well, then if that starts happening, that's defeating the whole
purpose of being in a residential neighborhood. Again, the
issue comes up with landscaping. The trees that are along my
yard, I would like to cut down. So now this happens here, I've
got trees. Some are dead, some aren't. It's going to look
terrible. So why should I be stuck keeping my landscaping the
way it is because somebody else had moved inside? I don't
think that's fair at all. I don't see this as being anything that's
going to enhance my property value. In fad, I see it as being a
deterrent for anybody wanting to purchase my home if I ever
decide to sell it. I know I certainly dont want to live next to a
commercial building or a business. Why would anybody else? I
could have saved $100,000 and moved into a house next to a
business. I chose not to. I purchased this home because of the
location and because of what we have in the neighborhood. Its
not a real busy neighborhood; its a nice quiet neighborhood
with the exception of the noise from the highway and Eight Mile.
I know its Tale and I apologize. I'm quite nervous, and you
people scare me.
Mr. Alanskas: We're not going to hurt you.
20322
Mr. Janik: Yeah, well I know that and I can run by the time you gel to me.
But I think there are other points. I know its Tale. I just don't
see this as a good thing. If he wants to be that hometown, there
are other places around that he can do the same thing. It
doesn't have to be in our neighborhood. Thank you.
Kip Bonds, 38560 Morningstar. You think Shawn was nervous. This just shows
our commitment. I want to thank you very much for reading my
letter. I'm going to make this real short. There were a couple
points that I just wanted to sort of reinforce. I was around when
that original waiver use was put in place. I knew the Simmons
when they lived there. I believe at that time we were
guaranteed that the driveway would remain on Eight Mile. I
don't know if it was legally written into the waiver. The drives to
Meadowview would be closed. That hasn't happened. I don't
know if there's any recourse there. Shawn has said
Meadowview is right at the crest of a hill. People coming from
the expressway turning north into the subdivision into
Farmington Hills use the left hand tum lane. People coming
from Newburgh turning south into our subdivision use the left
hand tum lane. You cannot see each other until you reach the
crest of the hill. People leaving a doctor's office or any building
there will quickly find out they cant make a left hand tum and
use that left tum lane as a shield lane because they cant see
the cars coming. It's very difficult to see on a flat piece of paper.
They will very quickly Team going through the sub and out on to
Hickory Lane it's much easier. And, again, I point out, when my
granddaughter is playing, I know the cars. I know the people
that are driving by. That's kind of a definition of a neighborhood.
You know whom you live with. When the waiver use was
created, there were properties all around that house that were
likely to go commercial. They were on Eight Mile Road. Since
then, they have all gone private, including the lots across Eight
Mile Road in Farmington Hills. I understand we cant sit here
and argue about whether the waiver use should be completely
denied or not, but I believe that's where this has got to go. A
doctor's office looks good, but our position is, there's an acre
and a half there, you could buy that property, restore the farm
house, knock dawn the barn, which by the way is not the
original barn. The original barn burned. And there is still room
to put two houses on half acre lots that would sell for half a
million dollars. There is investment opportunity if you want to do
R. Thank you very much.
Jerry Leanyus, 38603 Eight Mile. I own properly right next to it. Lot 7. 1 wasn't
notified by them of what was going on until I got this notice from
Livonia. I wasn't against the Bak Photography Studios. I was in
20323
favor of the improvements he was making on the property and
so forth. But I am very concerned about this project, the
expansion, addilional parking, additional employees, and I don't
think it's a good deal. Thank you.
Mary Mysliwiec, 20464 Meadowview. I'm here to oppose this building, nothing
against the Doctor. If you've all been out there to look at it, its
all rural; it's all homes. It's not a place for a doctor's office. We
know, let's not kid ourselves, its historical. We've had the
lawyers in there getting a tax break. We've had the veterinary in
there getting a tax break. We've had Bak Photography in there
getting a tax break. This is an historical building. Is it going to
be brought up to code to be handicap accessible? All fire
codes? It will have to be, but I also want to say that the
driveway was onto Eight Mile when the Simmons lived there. It
was put onto Meadowview when they widened Eight Mile, but
has never been put back. If by any chance this goes through,
we would like that driveway put back on Eight Mile. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the pudic hearing. The
pelitioners have the last opportunity to speak.
Mr. Donaldson: Just a couple follow-ups to vhal was said. If @ were possible
from an engineering standpoint and it would help things, we
could certainly put our drive access directly off of Eight Mile. I
don't know what ramificafions it would have. We would actually
have to probably put in a decelerafion and accelerafion lane
and things of that nature. And a curb cut would be pretty close
to the exisling drive. We're not opposed to that. Again, we're
dealing with an individual who really wants to be there and
wants to facilitate the residents' wishes as well. There was an
issue brought up about the upstairs and the door in the rear and
the windows. In the addition, there is no upstairs. It's meant to
match the architecture of the exisling building so it's just a single
story addition, no upstairs. The windows are merely for
aesthetics. We would be happy to take them out if that was an
issue. The rear door is easily taken out. It has no real function
from the doctors standpoint, so that could certainly be taken out
to avoid any issues Wth that. I would also challenge anyone to
go over and lake a look at Dr. Pierce's operation. He really is a
one-man show. He runs a very efficient operelion. This is not
smoke and mirrors about putling in another physician. We
embrace the fad that this would be a one-man medical
opemlion waiver if it were to be granted. The floor plan is slill
preliminary. If the Planning Commission wanted to see a
different layout, that would also be acceptable to Dr. Pierce. I'm
sure we would comply with those things. As far as the parking
lot is mncemed, we would be happy to leave a stoned informal
20324
parking lot. Its just I know the City will not accept it. So
unfortunately, it's sort of a closed topic from that standpoint. I
guess again in closing I would just say if it's not somebody like
Dr. Pierce, then who would be that right person to go here?
Thankyou.
Dr. Pierce:
With the amount of square footage that we have, I'm presently
at 3,200 square feet. I have seven exam rooms, one lab, one x-
ray room. We have one managerial room. We have a waiting
room with 25 chairs. I've been there for almost 10 to 12 years.
We're busting out the sides. As a medical practice, you look at
plus or minus two miles so that you don't inconvenience your
patients. I have gone over every square foot of two miles
around that building, and there's just not a whole lot that exists.
When I saw the historical building, I said this is what it is.
Personally, I dont look at what I do as a business. I look at it as
I'm very fortunate. Its something that I'm able to do. And this
historical building will be my home. It will be my patients' home.
It will patients' home of Livonia. I'm not looking to put 27
doctors there. You've been there. It doesn't fit. It fits one
doctor with an old-fashioned style who wants to take care of
people, whose office is expanding, who's 43, who has four boys
5 to 15, whols not moving. Who has to stay in the area and who
wants to stay in the area and wants to make Livonia the
healthiest community in America. That's what I'm trying to do.
Mr. McCann:
Are you an M.D.?
Dr. Pierce:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Do you use any type of therapists, physical therapists or
any specialists?
Dr. Pierce:
We have in the past. Presently, we haven't in the last four or
five years. It becomes loo burdensome. Its loo much
aggravation. There's loo many people tripping over each other.
Imagine what it would be if you have this amount of doctors and
staff. It's hard to have more than one doctor, for me at least.
I've had GI people, I've had podiatrists, PT people, but they
don't stay. It works better just to have one doctor. We do have
ultrasound, like I said, but I've been doing it this way for ten
years now with no other doctors. It works for me. I like it. I like
being a solo practitioner. You will not find too many doctors
anymore who aren't hooked up with a hospital. I do believe in
old-fashioned medicine and I believe it can survive and I believe
the negative connotations that go in everybodys minds about
how people are going to go through neighborhoods . my
patients don't do that. Its just not what we're all about. We're
20325
people who care about people, just like those people in the
neighborhood. I want to be there for 20 - 25 years. I don't
necessarily hear that from my neighbors tonight. I'm worried
about the value of my building, and I want them to do nice
things to the subdivision. I want it to be good because, I
promise you, when we stand here and I'm 65 years old, there
will still be a practice there with me in it. I don't know who else
is going to say that in the neighborhood. And I'm going to make
sure that I do the best for the neighborhood. As I do now, we do
public health fairs and things in that nature. Like I said, I don't
look at this as a business. I look at is as I'm the most fortunate
man in the world to be able to do the profession that helps
people and provides a service that many people cannot do.
And I don't want to do an institutionalized stock. I wish I could
make the building less. Truly, adding 3,000 square feel to this
building is killing me. But I can afford it. I'd rather take down
part of the building and add another 2,000 square feet, make it a
4,000 square foot building, and I could do it for half the price.
However, we want to keep the integrity of the historical home,
and this is the only way to do it. That home, whether you've
been in it or not, has walls in the middle of the home. If we're
going to keep the integrity of that home, then I can't put a
meeting room in the middle of a pole. It just cant happen. So
we're going to work around d because I like it. I may be the only
person crazy enough to like putting on an extra 3,000 square
feet and adding $75,000 of extra cash, but I'm going to be there.
And if I'm going to call it home, and I'm fired of being in a three
story building that I can't call home. I can put my feet on the
desk. I can lel my kids run around in the parking lot and call it
my second home. And that's what I'm looking to do. And I
appreciate you listening and appreciate having this opportunity
to talk to you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questons? The public hearing is closed. A
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and adopted, it was
#0436-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 15, 2003, on
Petfion 2003-03-02-05, submitted by Bennett Donaldson,
requesting waiver use approval to expand the existing building
in order to operate a medical office on property located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Hickory Lane and
Meadowview Lane in the Northwest % of Section 6, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2003-03-02-05 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
20326
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet P-3 prepared by
Professional Engineering Associates, dated March 12,
2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 prepared by
Professional Engineering Associates, dated March 12,
2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet PE -2
prepared by Gillett Associates, Inc., dated March 7, 2003,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the Floor Plan marked Sheet PFP-1 prepared by
Gillett Associates, Inc., dated March 7, 2003, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That this approval shall limit the use of the facility to the
office of only one doctor inasmuch as the parking provided
is based upon the requirement for a professional office
rather than for a medical clinic;
6. That all plant materials shown on the aboveteferenced
Landscape Plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
7. That all landscaped areas shall be fully irrigated;
8. That all parking spaces shall be double striped and all
handicapped spaces shall be individually signed as
required;
9. That site lighting shall be provided by means of lighted
bollards as depicted in the detail on the above -referenced
Site Plan;
10. That a stop sign shall be installed at the driveway for
exiling vehicles in accordance with the recommendation of
the Traffic Bureau;
11. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council; and
20327
12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area; and
4. That the Livonia Historic Preservation Commission has
approved the preliminary plans contingent on review of the
final detailed architectural plans.
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: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: This particular property is zoned RUF, which is a residential
classification. Although it allows office uses as a waiver use, I
consider that more of an accessory use. The main we in the
RUF district is residential. We've never been willing to rezone
this property from RUF to any other classification such as OS,
but it looks like we may be willing to expand it substantially as a
non-residential use. I'm uncomfortable with that, so I'm not
going to vote for this approving resolution.
Mr. Piercecchi: Like Commissioner Shane, I cannot support this resolution
because I feel that this is spot zoning to Professional Office
since the waiver use goes with the land and spot zoning in my
opinion is not sound planning. I believe it will have an adverse
effect on property values, especially in view of the additional
traffic that is going to go through it. As far as harmony, it's not
in harmony because there is a major difference in its function to
that of a residential property. Hopefully, some other people will
go along with it and we can put this away. Perhaps there are
other ways of handling this, and I think one of the gentlemen
mentioned it. Perhaps it can be moved to Greenmead.
Inasmuch as it's one and half acres, that will put three beautiful
RUF homes there and many R -5s. So the property can be
20328
utilized if that building can be moved. I don't know if it can or
not. That's up to the Historical Commission. They know more
about that, Mr. Chairman, than I do. But I think we'd be wise if
we turned this thing down. Its not the end of the word if this
doctor doesn't get in there.
Mr. Alanskas: I just want to give my opinion. When Mr. Helmkamp had this
building as his law office here, I dont recall any of the residents
complaining about his business because he didn't bother
anybody. It was a low use office until there was a fire and he
could no longer use the property. And looking at this gentleman
and what he wants to do, seeing that we had a grooming dinic
in there where we had barking dogs. I wouldn't want that. I
think that this is going to be, as far as a use, a very quiet use
and a very small use. So, therefore, I will be supporting this
resolution. Thankyou.
Mr. McCann: I'm kind of tom. I came in tonight saying, no, I really didn't want
to expand the use. I see what the doctor is stating here tonight.
I'm impressed by the fact that a married man with four kids, that
he's looking for something to be his second home. And I truly
believe what he's telling us tonight. I'm taking him at his word,
but I'm also taking it from a realistic point of view after being on
the Planning Commission for 15 years. We've got a piece of
property, one and half acres abutting Eight Mile Road. To move
the home to Greenmead, we haven't done it for a long time. I've
been involved in Greenmead. I'm the Resident Agent for
Greenmead, and my wife is very involved with it. My mother
was involved with it. It's a very expensive thing to do to move a
home, especially an historic home like that, and I know
Greenmead doesn't have the money. I knew Mr. Helmkamp.
When he went into that office, he put a fortune into that office.
In my conversatons with him, he never recovered the money he
put into it. He said it was just a dream and an ego to put that
kind of money into it, but he loved it until it burned. I think that
was true of the veterinary clinic. When I say economics, right
now we have two waiver uses. The current owner can sell it
either as law offices or a veterinary clinic and grooming studio.
Those are both more commercial than residential type uses.
They're professional uses to a certain point. The economics of
it that he's going to sell it to one of those uses . . there's
nothing that the neighbors can do or the City can do to slop
either one of those uses from going in there. As long as you
have those commercial uses, the value of the property is going
to prohibit the building of residential homes. Its an RUF zoning
to match up to the area zoning. All you would get is three
homes if you could configure them, if you could gel permission
to move the home. It's on the Stale registry and the cost of
20329
moving the home and the cost of three lots would be extremely
prohibitive of ever putting in any type of residential. So from my
practical experience, that's just not going to happen. So what
I'm back to is, it better to continue it as a law office and not
expand the building? However, we're tearing down about a
1,500 square foot building and pulfing up 3,000. So we're
expanding it by about 1,500 square feet. We're expanding the
property. That concerns me. I was very concerned about the
number of offices and the number of exam rooms that were
going in there. Mr. Taormina said it can be limited to a one
physician practice. That means there can only be one doctor
attending patients at a lime. So to me, do I believe a veterinary
clinic is more appropriate or do I believe that the medical facility
is appropriate? I can't change the fact that there's a veterinary
clinic already approved or that there are law offices already
approved. I am concerned about the size of it but I think after
hearing everything tonight, I don't think that the neighborhood
would gel a better building than what the doctor is offering. So
I'm still not completely decided, but I'm leaning towards
approving 1. Is there anybody else? Will the Secretary please
call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Walsh, LaPine, Alanskas, Smiley, McCann
NAYES:
Shane, Pieroecchi
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. This conduces the Public Hearing section
of our agenda. We will now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plans
section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in
support or opposition to these items. Will the Secretary please
read the next item?
ITEM #6 PETITION 2003-03-08-08 NEXTEL
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petifion
2003-03-08-08, submitted by Nextel Communicafions
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the commercial building located at 39200 Schoolcraft
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19.
20330
Mr. Taormina: This site is located on the north side of Schoolcraft between
Eckles and Newburgh Road. Nextel Communications is
requesting approval to construct an addition to the rear of their
existing telecommunication facility. This site is located between
Motor City Truck and the Daniel A. Lord Knights of Columbus
Hall. According to a note on the plans, the proposed addition
would only house new equipment. This facility operates as a
switching station and does not receive any outside customers.
The proposed addition would be one-story in height, 4,056
square feel in size and added to the north elevation of the
existing building. The existing building is two -stories in height
and 18,000 square feet in size. If constructed, the enlarged
structure would become 22,056 square feel in overall size. In
order to accommodate the new addition, part of the
arrangement behind the building would have to be altered.
Presently in the area immediately behind the building is the
facility's loading dock and mechanical equipment. In addition,
some of the facility's existing parking spaces are also located in
this area. The plan shows that the existing building is 80 feet
across its back wall. The new addition would only be 52 feel
where it would attach to the existing building. The notched out
area where the addition does not extend would be partitioned off
with 8 fool high block walls. These separate sections would
hold the relocated mechanical equipment and truck well. Within
the setback of the west property line, the area would be covered
in gravel and a now of condensers would be installed. These
condensers would be a continuation of the existing condensers
that run along this side of the building. Required parking is 15
spaces and 45 spaces are provided. The Building Elevation
Plan shows that the new addition would be constructed out of
masonry blocks that would match that of the existing building.
An on-site inspection showed that the existing building is
constructed mainly out of a white colored scored block. The
front elevation, as well as a wrap-around section on both the
east and west elevations, are covered in a red brick. Once
completed, the entire structure should look as if it were
constructed all at one time. No additional landscaping would be
added to the site as part of this proposal. The existing
landscaping, which is located mainly out in front of the building
and along SchoolcreR Road, would not be touched.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 7, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objections
20331
to the proposal at this time. No further rtghtof-way dedication is
required." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated April 3, 2003, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct an addition to the commercial building
located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated April 10, 2003, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans submitted in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to the commercial building located at
39200 Schoolcraft Road. We have no objections or
recommendations in regards to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 1, 2003,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 27,
2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The parking stripe detail on page 1
appears to be incorrect. The out -to -out dimension of the 24
inch stripes should be 18 inches or 9 inches from the outside
stripe to the center. (2) A plan review for code issues related to
egress changes has not been done and will be completed at
time of application. This Department has no further objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Doug Hall, Nextel Communications, 2003 Edmund Halley Drive, Roston, Virginia
20191. 1 am the Construction Manager overseeing this
proposed project.
Mr. McCann:
I thank you for coming up here and Teaming all about our local
politics this evening.
Mr. Hall :
Nola problem. I've been on the other side also.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about your
development?
Mr. Hall :
Certainly. The existing facility, which is roughly 18,000 square
feet, houses three switching facilities. M're looking to add an
additional 4,000 square feet for an additional switching facility,
which is due to our subscriber growth. I think basically you all
have covered it pretty well in what we're looking for.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
20332
Mr. Alanskas: Can you tell me why on the back you're showing 18' x 10'
parking spaces instead of 20' x 10'? It looks like you have a lot
of room back there.
Mr. Hall: Is it supposed to be 20' x 10'? Lel me get the expert up here
Bill Donnan, Arpee/Donnan, Inc., 36937 Schoolcrati Road, Livonia, Michigan
48150. The parking that is shown there is existing parking.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand that. I want to know why its not 20 x 10 like it
should be.
Mr. Donnan: Idont know. Wejusl measured it. That's what it is.
Mr. Alanskas: Because you're showing one on the side here which is 20 x
10' by itself.
Mr. Donnan: The parking there ... the stripes are all existing.
Mr. Alanskas: So itd be no problem to make it 20'x 10', two feet more?
Mr. McCann: Are these the one abutting the highway?
Mr. Donnan: Right.
Mr. McCann: Don't those have a two fool hangover?
Mr. Alanskas: Right. Most of them do. Well, that explains it. Thank you.
Mr. Neff. If I could add one other thing. We do have a photo rendering if
you're interested in the aesthetics of the building.
Mr. McCann: We saw it at the study meeting, but if you'd like to put it up we'd
love to look at it again.
Mr. LaPine: Can you just explain to me how this eight foot brick is going to
go around? Is that going to encompass all the gasoline and the
propane tanks? Is thatwhatthat's for?
Mr. Neff. Yes, sir, that is correct. Right now there's a generator roughly
here and that would be moved over here. This vOl be enclosed
with a brick face wall. Then I think we're leaving this open with
fencing, and then you'll have a gate here. The reason for that is
ventlabon.
20333
Mr. La Pine:
I was out there looking at the site. I think where the propane
gas tank is, there's a wall there and then there's a gate with a
big lock on it and chain.
Mr. Neff.
I believe both generators out there do ran off of diesel.
Mr. McCann:
Whats the propane tank for, or is that a diesel tank?
Mr. Neff.
Yes, it should be a diesel lank. There are two diesel tanks.
Mr. McCann:
Thais your emergency backup?
Mr. Neff.
Yes, sir. Correct. And we have a before picture here which is
existing now, and then the photo rendering shows after with the
proposed addition.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? A
motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
approved, it was
#0437-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-03-08-08
submitted by Nextel Communications requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
commercial building located at 39200 Schoolcraff Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated March 13, 2003,
prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
PA -0 dated February 23, 2003, prepared by Herbsl-
Musciano Architects/Planners, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
20334
4. That no LED light band or neon shall be permitted on this
site, including but not limited to, the building or around the
windows;
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. This conduces the Miscellaneous Site
Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the
Pending Item section of our agenda. This item has been
discussed at length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only
be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary
please read the next dem?
ITEM #7 MOTION TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING Religious Assembly
Land Use
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to
hold a public hearing pursuant to C.R. #131-03 to determine
whether or not to amend Section 11.02 of Article XI and Section
18.38 of Article XVIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as
amended, which prohibits any land use regulation that treats a
religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a
non -religious assembly or institution.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#0438-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #131-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a)
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section
11.02 of Article XI and Section 18.38 of Article XVIII of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, which prohibits
any land use regulation that treats a religious assembly or
institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious
assembly or institution.
20335
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 863rd Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 15, 2003, was adjourned at 10:54
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr