HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-07-13 16966
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 13, 1999,the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
788th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale
Elaine Koons William LaPine* Dan Piercecchi
H. G. Shane
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Bill Poppenger, Planner I
and Robby Williams were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request,this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will
hold its own public hearing, makes the final determination as to whether a petition is
approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has
ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted
by the City Planning Commission becomes effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption.
The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions
upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight.
* Mr. LaPine arrived at 9:15 p.m.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-1-5 by C &J
Futuristic, Inc., proposing to rezone property located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to RC.
Mr. Poppenger 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 is a letter dated June10, 1999, which states as follows: "Pursuant to your
request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
16967
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The
following legal descriptions should be used for petition purposes only: 20209
Farming Road - The South 99.0 feet of the North 1188.0 feet of the East 1/2 of
the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, T. 1S., R. 9E., except the East 60
feet thereof and 20219 Farmington Road- The South 66.0 feet of the North
1089.0 feet of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, T.
15., R. 9E., except the East 60 feet thereof. We trust that this will provide you
with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you
have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. We have a letter addressed to the City Planning Commission dated
July 8, 1999, which reads as follows: "This is in response to your recent letter
announcing a Public Meeting Re: Petition 99-5-1-5 by C & J Futuristic Inc.
scheduled for July 13, 1999. Because of a physical disability, it may be
difficult for us to attend the rezoning hearing. We do, however, wish to
express our views on the matter by means of this letter, should we not be able
to attend the meeting. We live in Windridge Village, Lot 440 and these are our
views, observations, and objections to the proposed rezoning: • The area in
question is much too small to accommodate 12 detached condominiums
without overcrowding, creating both health and pollution problems because of
the density and congestion of people and vehicles. •It would contribute to
greater traffic congestion on already congested Farmington Road by erecting
a limited access road with ingress and egress onto Farmington Road only. •It
is not in the best interest of the City's long term plans to develop the 5 parcels
as a unit. We respectfully submit that these comments be given due
consideration in the Planning Commission's decision." The letter is signed by
Chester M. and Irene Fortuna, 334864 Norfolk Street, Livonia, Michigan
48152. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Imre Piko,P.O. Box 408, Allen Park, Michigan. I live in Dearborn and have property and
building in Livonia on Schoolcraft.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us a little bit about your project and answer some of the questions
that were raised in the letters?
Mr. Piko: O.K. The property is 165' wide and 600' long. I have worked with the city to
develop this project mainly John Nagy also. I want to make this project will
fit into the neighborhood. Behind this property is an apartment complex. A
quiet apartment complex and I felt these are individual condominiums that are
not attached, detached, they are more like individual homes. I've got a model
over here. We show each individual unit and how it is going to look. I did this
because I felt the residential people on Norfolk this would be a very beneficial
for them and a nice buffer between them and the medical buildings and the
apartment complex and the residential units on the side. This will not be any
different actually than individual homes as they will be roughly about 1900 to
2000 sq. ft. in it, all brick and I did meet with the neighborhood myself and so
far I didn't hear any objection to it whoever came to the meeting. As a matter
of fact,they were for it. Personally, I felt this project blended into this
16968
neighborhood so nicely and very properly and would be beneficial to the
community and the City of Livonia.
Mr. McCann: One of the questions was, did you try to acquire the property to the north of
you so that you could make it a little deeper setback?
Mr. Piko: The property north of it, does not belong to us and when we put together this
project, I asked John Nagy, he said what is not yours you cannot go over yet.
It belongs to somebody else so I cannot
Mr. McCann: You did not answer my question. Did you try and buy the property to the
north, acquire it.
Mr. Piko: Yes, we did talk to the lady.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: Through the Chair to the petitioner? Did you attempt to acquire any additional
property north of that? There are three parcels north of this parcel which have
homes on them. Did you make any attempt to go beyond the first parcel
adjacent to you?
Mr. Piko: The very first home that we tried to acquire, nothing beyond that. We do not
know who those people are. They just moved into the neighborhood.
Mr. Shane: Would you be willing to make an attempt to purchase any additional property
beyond the lady you already talked to?
Mr. Piko: Yeah, if we could come to terms. The residents, and I don't know who those
people are, I know only one person, right next to me.
Mr. Alanskas: You say you had a meeting at the Leather Bottle?
Mr. Piko: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: How did that meeting come about and when was it?
Mr. Piko: This came out very nicely.
Mr. Alanskas: When was the meeting?
Mr. Piko: June 17, I believe.
Mr. Alanskas: How many people were there?
Mr. Piko: I do not know exactly, about 10.
Mr. Alanskas: Ten. How were they notified to be there?
16969
Mr. Piko: There response was very favorable.
`�.. Mr. Alanskas: Did you send a letter to the homes?
Mr. Piko: I took it personally.
Mr. Alanskas: Door to door?
Mr. Piko: Yes.
\Mr. Alanskas:How many doors did you go to?
Mr. Piko: I went to all the Norfolk addresses, which is directly attached to our property
and also both sides.
Mr. Alanskas: That is 13 homes off of Norfolk. Any more?
Me. Piko: Also there was a lady who wasn't at home so I put it in her door.
Mr. Alanskas: How about the six homes on Irving Drive?
Mr. Piko: Where?
Mr. Alanskas: Irving Drive which is just to the south of Norfolk.
Mr. Piko: No, I did not.
Mr. Alanskas: You just went to those 13 and you had 10 people all total?
Mr. Piko: I believe, yes. We all signed in.
Mr. Alanskas: Of the ten that you had, what was the response?
Mr. Piko: It was favorable.
Mr. Alanskas: What percent, 50%, 70%?
Mr. Piko: 100%.
Mr. Alanskas: Are any of those people here tonight?
Mr. Piko: Some are.
Mr. Alanskas: have you built any homes or condos anywhere else?
Mr. Piko: Well no.
�`'" Mr. Alanskas: This is your first endeavor?
16970
Mr. Piko: We will be working with people who have built a condo, Leo Soave.
Nolo, Mr. Alanskas: Leo Soave?
Mr. Piko: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir I have a few concerns. One of them was already touched upon about
trying to extend your property north for the three vacant lots. I haven't seen
your site plan. I understand that number 1 you have allocated 3-1/2 parking
spaces per unit and that you have a 22' wide street. Does your plan call for
parking on both sides of the street? That is a picture of the homes. I mean
your site layout, your roads, etc.
Mr. Piko: Yes, that is Farmington Road. You enter in here and each unit has two car
garage with additional parking for each unit.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are two of those cars on the street?
Mr. Piko: None are on the street.
Mr. Piercecchi: You figure 4 cars are going to be parked on the property?
Mr. Piko: Two cars in the garage and two car parking area next to the side.
stn. Mr. Piercecchi: I understand that.
Mr. Piko: This is the parking and off to the side has two parking spaces. So actually I
only need
Mr. Piercecchi: These are the extra spaces here and the garage is here?
Mr. Piko: Each unit.
Mr. Piercecchi: Because I was concerned about a 22'wide street if you had parking on both
sides of the street you can't get a fire truck down it.
Mr. Piko: Oh no,I worked on this and it worked very nicely.
Mr. Piercecchi: Another thing that concerns me is that these homes are going to be
foughlyl2 feet from the street? The front of these packages are roughly 12 feet
from the private street?
Mr. Piko: From the private street?
Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. That front set back from the curb.
r.. Mr. Piko Yes, it is about 12'.
Mr. Piercecchi: Don't you think that is a little bit close to the street?
16971
Mr. Piko: That is a private street. There is really nobody is going to drive on this road
only the residents who live in there. There isn't going to be any traffic on this
road. That is a private road and only the people who live in there and only
once in a while they will drive out of here.
Mr. McCann: What is the setback to the rear of the home?
Mr. Piko: We have 75' from here, from Farmington Road, and I have 50' from this
apartment complex road back there and 30' from each property line we have a
set back. We have 30' between each unit and my understand is it does not
even require that much.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition?
Mr. Piko: I brought this model in here also. Each unit is an all brick home. It is a 1900
sq. ft. home, full basement, two car garage. It is nothing different personally
than a residential home. It is treated very neatly and very nicely.
Mr. Piercecchi: And that extra parking you are talking about will be to the left of the garage
there?
Mr. Piko: Yes, it is right next to it. We have a greenbelt. We are not going to do
anything shabby.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Please line up because if there is no one
ready to speak, I am going to close the public hearing.
Scott Pennington, 33638 Norfolk. We are the property that backs up to the property that we
are discussing and to the far west end.
Mr. Alanskas: Which lot number are you sir?
Mr. Pennington: It is Lot 444. As Mr. Piko represented, my wife and I did meet with him at
the Leather Bottle and there were two other couples, homeowners and Mr.
Piko and his wife. At that meeting he did present his proposal and the ideas
that he had. He did explain that these would be 1900 sq. ft. approximate
homes, all brick exterior and he represented that the price he anticipated would
bring from$250,000 to $300,000. I was there for most of the discussion. He
also asked us to stay for dinner afterwards. I had another commitment, so I
wasn't able to stay but I don't know that there was any consensus or any vote as
a result of that meeting for or against this project. Obviously there are some
concerns from some of the other neighbors. In addition to those that have been
mentioned we are concerned about the impact such a development is going to
have on our property value, obviously. I've got a concern involving privacy.
Given that these units are going to be built only 30' from our back property
line, I think that is very close and if any other extensions were put on the back
of the home I've got a privacy concern between our property and this property.
I've also got a concern, our subdivision for some reason has terrible water
16972
pressure, so low at times that I can't even water my lawn with what water
pressure we have if it is time of high usage.
Mr. Alanskas: Welcome to the club, we all have that problem.
Mr. Pennington: Fortunately, where I lived in Livonia previously, we did not. But I don't
know how the property is going to be developed but if that is going to tap into
our water pressure and make the problem worse, that is going to be a serious
problem. We are fairly new to the subdivision but I understand that in the past
some of the other residents have tried to get some answers to this problem but
unsuccessfully. My other concern is it was also mentioned in the letter I don't
know what the fmancing is for this project is. He hasn't developed projects
like this in the past. It would be a serious problem given that there are many
small children there however if such a project were started the financing was
not available to complete and we ended up having the property behind our
house with large holes in the ground or whatever. Mr. Piko did offer to work
with us in terms of dividing the property line and has said he is willing to put
up a fence if that is what the residents desire. I think based on my conversation
with the other residents I think that the preference would be somewhat of a
small berm, maybe a 4'high berm with some landscaping on it to give us to
help us perhaps with some of the privacy concerns that we have. Those are my
only comments. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, how many sq. ft. is your home?
slow
Mr. Pennington: My home is just over 2300 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: We are trying to direct for the audience information tonight, we are looking at
the rezoning issue. What we are looking at tonight is to determine whether or
not RC zoning classification is proper for this area. This particular site plan is
not up for approval tonight. We are just looking to see whether we should
change this from RUF which is approximately 1/2 acre size individual homes
to the RC classification. So we are not looking at water pressure problems and
type of thing other than the impact that type zoning would have.
Saad Shafie, 33600 Norfolk. I am not definitely against progress and that particular piece of
land however I do have some concerns. Many of my concerns have been
expressed by my next door neighbor, Scott, and about the privacy and the
overcrowding. I do believe that we were not informed about the meeting and I
do not know about the consensus and maybe we were not in town so we did
not know about the meeting except from our neighbor. One of the reasons we
were attracted to that subdivision about nine or ten years ago was the value of
the property, the quality of living in the City of Livonia and I hope if this
project, if it goes through, will not jeopardize that sentiment that we have. I
believe that 12 units is going to be a little bit overcrowded. There isn't much
room between our backyard and the next condo. So I do want to express my
concern and my also I know the future has to be developed for something into
that piece of land. I don't know what is the proper one. I don't have an
alternative but I do know that 12 units is going to be a little much for that
16973
neighborhood. I hope the Commission will take that into consideration.
Thank you.
Hezeus LeBlanc. I live on the north side of Mr. Piko's property. I have a concern of how is
that going to change my property and we still haven't seen the plan. I was not
asked to this meeting at the Leather Bottle, I never heard of it. I have never
seen the plan for it. That is all I have to say. Thank you.
Stewart Simpson, 20307 Farmington Road. How does his rezoning affect the properties
north?
Mr. McCann: It has no affect at this time other than if it were approved, you could have
condos between residential and residential.
Mr. Simpson: The other lots will still be zoned as well?
Mr. McCann: There is nothing before us tonight to change that zoning.
Mr. Simpson: O.K.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else? I am going to give the petitioner any last comments, Mr.
Piko, before I close the public hearing.
Mr. Piko: Personally, I do not know the people who wrote the letter and against it. I am
°Now apologizing to them if some reason or other I couldn't together with them.
However I do think this little project would be of much benefit to the city and
the community. The reason I am saying this is, we had a couple of years ago,
somebody was going to buy this land, at a very very desirable price. However,
what that person wanted to put in there I was concerned about the community.
As a result I did not sell this property to them because I felt this community
deserved something better than this and that is why I can up with this plan. I
felt personally probably this was the best I could do with this land and nothing
else I could do. If it doesn't go through,then I cannot have this property and it
this property will have to go on sale. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: To the south of you it is all R-3, have you thought about making a smaller
residential homes in there, in a R-3 district? You would be getting 4-1/2 units
per acre if you were at R-3 which would give you nine or ten units instead of
22.
Mr. Piko: But that would be a very small residential unit. That would be I would say
the neighborhood would be jeopardized if a smaller residential is going to go
there. There would be more of a devalue of their property than anything.
Mr. Alanskas: In R-3 classification is 80'X 120' and that is what you have to the south of you
right now. You have a bunch of homes that are R-3,that are 80'X 120' so if
you just continued that on to your property to an R-3 it might fit in compared
to these RC units.
16974
Mr. Piko: We have tried to do this before but you have to have 60' road which is required
by the city and as a result you probably would not have enough room to do
Now this.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I am going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously denied it was
#7-122-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 13,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-5-1-5 by C &J
Futuristic, Inc. proposing to rezone property located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to RC, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-5-1-5 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for a unified and
comprehensive development for the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with adjacent
zoning districts and uses in the area;
`.w 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an unacceptable
increase in the population density in the subject area; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
already prevalent 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: Is there any discussion? I have a few comments. I looked at the homes, the
idea of making condos between the R-3 and the office to the north is not all
bad, however, you just don't have enough land there to have only 30' setbacks.
The houses don't even meet the R-1 requirements. You can walk out your
front door and you are in the middle of the street. You are trying to sell a
family home to a family but not giving the children a safe place to play. The
children are going to walk out the front door and get hit by a car. It is just not
sound planning. It is not a large enough area to develop a condo site plan as
you are showing us. I don't believe without a combined package for those
three properties and a long term point of view on this area that changing the
zoning on this property to RC at this time would be best for the city.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
... It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution.
16975
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-1-6 by Marvin
Walkon proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh
`.. Road between Pembroke Street and St. Martins Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6 from RUFC to OS.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Department, dated July 13, 1999,
which reads as follows: We also have a letter dated July 7, 1999, addressed to
the City of Livonia Planning Committee which reads as follows: "This letter
is in regards to the re zoning of the property Petition Number 99-6-1-6. We
are the property immediately South of this property located at 19545
Newburgh Road. In the 20 years we have lived here we have seen
tremendous growth in the area commercially as well as residential. We are
opposed to the rezoning of the property from RUFC to OS for many reasons.
The traffic on Newburgh has become almost unbearable with the growth in
the area. It will be much worse with the addition of more office buildings.
Sometimes the traffic back-up can be as far as 3/4 mile. We chose this area
for the beautiful trees and quiet. This office setting will destroy 7 acres of
natural beauty to be replaced with buildings, lights and asphalt. Peaceful
evenings will be disrupted with lights, noise and traffic at all hours. The
neighbors and I feel that Victor Office Park has plenty of room for half filled
office buildings. This would be prime land to be developed with homes or
condominiums, to invite people to live here and care about the area, not
strangers who come here to work not caring about the neighborhoods and
children. It would also continue with the residential growth in the area. If the
city feels it necessary to build more office buildings, in a city that already has
ample amount, we would like to request that a natural buffer, of
approximately 250 feet, be required between our property and any parking lot
or building, following precedence set with buildings already in existence on
Pembroke. Please do not allow them to build a 10 foot brick wall 50 feet
from our home" The letter is signed by Michael and Ann Swansinger, 19545
Newburgh Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. We have a letter dated July 7,
1999, addressed to "To whom it may concern" which reads as follows: "I am
writing in regards to Petition 99-6-1-6 by Marvin Walkon to rezone property
located at Newburgh Road and Pembroke Street from RUFC to OS. As a
citizen of Livonia and President of Willow Woods Subdivision I believe this
should remain RUFC or if there is a change it should be for single family
homes. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the City Planning
Commission meeting on July 13 for I will be out of town on a family
vacation. Please add my signature and my wife to the petition against this re
zoning." The letter is signed by Dennis A. Sartor, 19727 Liverpool Avenue,
Livonia, MI 48152 and Judith H. Sartor, 19726 Liverpool Avenue, Livonia,
MI 48152. There is a letter received by the City Planning Commission on
July 12, 1999, addressed to the City Planning Commission which reads as
follows: We are writing to let you know that we are unable to attend the July
16976
13, 1999, meeting because of health reasons, but we would like our feeling on
this matter know. We are very disappointed with the Petition 99-6-1-6 for
`.., rezoning on the west side of Newburgh Road between Pembroke Street and
St. Martins Avenue, and would like to vote AGAINST the OS rezoning. We
would like to have residential rezoning for that area, or to be left as is. Thank
you. P.S. MAKE SURE OUR VOTE AGAINST THIS REZONING
COUNTS!!!" The letter is signed by Francesco and Rosemary Rossi. There
is a petition with 149 signatures addressed to the City of Livonia Planning
Commission which reads as follows: "In reference to rezoning petition#99-6-
1-6 filed by proponent Mr. Marvin Walkon; The Willow Woods Homeowners
and the Residents on St. Martins Street are very concerned with the dramatic
changes that have taken place in our neighborhood over the past several
months. We strongly believe that this proposal will adversely affect us and
our neighborhood. Before you make any recommendations to the Counsel
this evening, please consider the following issues in depth. (1) The storm
sewer system is taxed. Flooding in and around our area is a major problem.
We consulted with an engineer and he recommends a retention pond on site
which would capture the runoff then meter the water slowing into the storm
system. (2) A greenbelt buffer at a minimum of 150 feet wide that is
consistent in size and character with the development to the immediate west
would insulate and afford some degree of privacy for the residents to the
south. (3) A landscaped berm that runs the length of the property from the
corner of Pembroke to the south property line would not only enhance the
project but it would help to retain the rural characteristics of the area. (4) A
�.. provision which would limit all signs and advertisements to Pembroke Road
only. (5) In order to insure the public safety we would insist that your
engineering department include a water main loop around the entire project
for the purpose of fire protection. Most importantly we feel there are many
alternatives to the present proposal. It is our understanding that the proponent
wishes to construct four two story commercial structures. This is inconsistent
with the area and the master plan. Ideally we would like to see two low rise
office buildings that face Pembroke. The buildings should be similar in size
and character to the office buildings to the immediate west. We believe it
would be in the best interests of the community as a whole to conduct a traffic
study of this area. Public safety along with all of the important issues
mentioned above should be enough for you to send this entire proposal to
committee for an in depth study and analysis on how this particular piece of
land is to be developed. We highly recommend that you table the proposal
and consider our requests. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to be
heard and to contribute to this exceptional community. Sincerely, ....
concerned residents of Livonia." That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Of that 149 signatures, is that two per household?
Mr. Nowak: There are some that two signatures per household and some have one.
Audience Member: That is 149 registered voters.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
16977
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Marvin Walkon, 5 Manor Wood, Bloomfield. Mr. McCann, may I begin?
Mr. McCann: Please
Mr. Walkon: I was listening to the petition, with many of the things that they said, I agree.
The only dispute I would have, or difference, would be the petition talked
about four commercial buildings. I think that is a misunderstanding. There is
going to be one building and it is a two story office. That is the only building.
It is not commercial, it will be office. It will be, what I would call a premier-
two story building. Of course, all brick, with distinct architecture. It will be
very well landscaped. There will be a berm to screen the south side. We kind
of knew this and wanted to make this part of our plan. We don't have a site
plan yet. We intend to work on the site plan. As far as the landscaping along
Newburgh, we are very sensitive to the trees and we are going to incorporate
those trees that are sound into any landscape plan. Most of you know that I
have developed in Livonia for the last 17 years, on major projects, the latest
the Millennium Park Racetrack. I think when we make commitments, we are
obligated to abide by those commitments. What I would like this meeting to
accomplish for me personally, is I would like to hear the questions and
concerns of the neighbors. What I would like to do at that point is to, my
partner on the project is Stuart Frankel because he has recently done an'tow building at the David Johns and Victor Park Center. He also has built the
shopping center at Six Mile and Newburgh which has recently been upgraded.
I frankly would be surprised if you voted yes tonight. I actually don't want
you to vote yes tonight. I believe that I want to meet with the neighbors. We
want to listen, we don't want to talk. If I can bring up the architect for a
minute. The object was not to build south of St. Martins. We don't want
those properties. We are not going to buy those properties. We don't want
them. This is where the ballgame ends. I can only speak for me and my very
clear statement to you that we will not purchase the properties to the south. It
would seem that we are the logical purchasers to incorporate within the office,
we are not going to. I think I agree with the neighbors. There has to be a
point of stopping. What we really are doing is developing along Pembroke
where it is already developed. We are extending the office along Pembroke.
We are not going to spread the zoning south. We are going to try and be very
careful on this project to make sure that the neighbors at the end of the day are
happy. The same thing I said at Pentagon Properties on Haggerty, the AMC
Theater and Millennium Park. We are not going to be happy until they are
happy. We don't want neighbors that don't want a project. We do want
neighbors that do want a project that thinks it fits in nicely with their homes. I
am going to ask the architect to come up and show the type of building that
we are talking about. Kevin Bedizen is with Professional Architects a very
well know PDA and building in this area and Novi and this area and
Rochester Hills and talk about building a premier building. It's going to be
the type of building that is going to attract headquarters,home headquarters.
Ten to fifteen thousand foot users. The high tech users, the software users.
16978
We don't want what Mr. Dinan has put in. There is an absolute need for that
type of office building. That is for the professional, the lawyers, the doctors.
`,. Small spaces, 1500 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. We are not going to compete with
that. For two reasons, number 1 our building costs are much much higher.
Secondly, our land costs are much much higher. We are looking to attract a
different, a different style and that is the way it is going to be focused. As far
as the architecture I would Kevin, if you could address that.
Kevin Bedizen:We are involved with one of the Victor Park projects. What we are trying to
do with materials of glass, stone and brick, somewhat similar to the post
office across the street from this is to bring in a clientele, again is not going to
be the small user that is going to be in and out. The users that are here are
going to be larger companies, that are coming in the morning and leave in the
afternoon. It is not an in and out business. It is not a retail business. It is not
the higher traffic in that respect where you have it going all day long. The
materials are going to be very clean. They are going to fit in with the
materials that are in Victor and across the street and we feel that the project is
really going to be a very positive influence on the area and positive influence
on bringing other business into the area.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us what building you are looking to bring in, an 80,000 sq. ft.
building?
Mr. Bedizen: We are looking at approximately 80,000 to 85,000 sq. ft. half of that per a
floor so we would be at about 44,000 for a foot print on the building. The
building would be centered basically in the center of the lot so that we would
be keeping a buffer area all the way around the building so on the roads as
well as the properties to the south we will be able to keep a green berm area to
soften the property. We will not be pushing the building up next to the
property if you had two or three buildings as I think some of the concerns
perhaps on the multi-building suggestion. With putting the building in the
center keeping the footprint smaller,the parking and landscape areas will
allow us to utilize the existing trees, try to incorporate them into islands. That
is what we have done on the site plan in the Victor Corporate Park where we
have tried to incorporate as many existing trees and natural vegetation which
you cannot replace that quickly so we try to work with that as much as we
can. There is going to be some of that that we are going to be able to do on
this property. Again, the perimeter, greenbelt areas with putting the building
in the middle of the site, it will allow us maintain some of the natural buffer
that is there.
Mr. McCann: Will you be able to keep the parking to the north and east and west?
Mr. Bedizen: We will have some parking all the way around the building. We can situate
the building so that there is less parking on the south side to try to less that but
there will be some entry on all faces of the building just because we need to
for egress.
16979
Mr. McCann: What about the greenbelt to the south facing the neighbors, 85,000 sq. ft.
building, what type of distance are we talking about, 120 foot greenbelt, 70
Nor foot greenbelt?
Mr. Bedizen: The building would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 260 to 280 feet
wide. With that width that would allow, with a single row or a double bank
row of parking, that would allow 40 or 50 feet and we would probably
because of counts, we are not going to be able to get 150 of greenbelt area in
there. It is not a feasibility for the site in terms of that. That is not necessarily
going to change as aspect of the building. We can provide a berm area in a
much smaller area with landscaping which visually will soften it. Which
visually hide headlights on a single level. I am not a proponent of brick walls
or concrete walls. I think greenbelts are much more efficient as creating all
of those elements.
Mr. McCann: The buildings to the west of you both have about 390 sq. ft. from the rear
elevation of the building to the rear property line and about 340 feet of that is
natural vegetation, both east/west building. What size berm is going to
separate this property from the southern neighbors?
Mr. Bedizen: I guess at this point, we don't know that sure. That is part of our study in
terms of what the final building configuration will be, how far it is located
from the corner and such. We would only suggest that it is not necessarily the
size in terms of distance from the property that makes a greenbelt work. It is
`*fts, the way you use the plant materials and the type of plant materials and the
type of plant materials that you use. A berm that is 20 feet wide with the
proper plant materials will screen as much as a berm that is 60 feet wide
without the proper plant materials unless you are putting up a berm that is 60
feet wide. There is a combination of things, it is not merely distance.
Mr. McCann: I know, but I have asked you three times. What is an estimate if you've got an
85,000 sq. ft. plan you have looked at this property, what is your estimate of
what a greenbelt could be on this?
Mr. Bedison: We would estimate perhaps a 30 foot greenbelt which would give us a
significant flat area on top in order to plant materials that would provide low
vision in that area and that be the intent.
Mr. Shane: Are there existing trees along that southern property line?
Mr. Bedizen: There are existing trees and again, it would be the intent to save as many of
those trees as possible.
Mr. Shane: How far north do those trees go on the property?
Mr. Bedizen: I can't answer for sure. They are spread throughout. I'm not sure of the
density from the south property line. They go all the way to Pembroke.
16980
Mr. Shane: My thought was why would you want to disturb existing trees if you can use
them as part of the buffer? I'm sure you would need more than 30 feet to do
that.
Mr. Bedizen: Our intention would be to use as much of those as possible. It is not possible
for us to save everything on the site.
Mr. Shane: I agree. But if it is possible to save as many as possible even if you have to
move the building a little bit to do it, I think that would be a better buffer than
something that has been put in there mechanically, so to speak. If you can use
the existing trees, that would be my preference along with whatever else you
can do.
Mr. Bedizen: That would be my preference as well.
Mr. Shane: One more question. Do you need the entire 7.2 acres to effectuate the
project. In other words, is it possible to shave a little bit off and still do what
you want to?
Mr. Bedizen: Based on the numbers and the building sq. footage, we would need a majority
of that property to facilitate that.
Mr. Shane: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr.Walkon, even though I am very reluctant at this stage of the game to
recommend a zoning change for that area, perhaps a compromise could be
worked out which would permit an office building, although slightly smaller
and still retain the residential look to the area. Have you considered the
possibility of rezoning only a portion of the property bordering on Pembroke
placing the building on this portion with exists and entrances on Pembroke
along and then perhaps developing the remaining area facing Newburgh into
RUF residential sites. My calculations indicate that it is very feasible to
construct a 50,000 sq. ft. building by rezoning an area approximately 460 X
425 sq. ft. along Pembroke and the remaining two acres into four 1/2 acre
sites. Would you consider such an approach, Mr. Walkon? It may satisfy the
residential concerns and I think some of the concerns of the Commissioners
sitting here this evening.
Mr. Walkon: We would consider that proposal and we will. I want you to know that we
don't have anything set in cement on this thing at all. We are here to learn and
we are here to listen. This is not like we have a plan and we are saying this is
our plan. This is what it is going to be. This is the beginning of a process.
We are going to be here again, and again. I know these aren't easy and there
are going to be prolonged and we are here, we would like an opportunity to
meet with at least some of the homeowners within the next couple of weeks
and get their views. What you said, Mr. Piercecchi, I have the owner of the
property here, Mr. Adzema, and the property is approximately 7.2 acres. So,
�"' there is really a coordinating effort between the property owner and the
16981
neighbors but we are here to satisfy the neighbors. We are not here to push
anything.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Walkon, although I don't know if the office building is the right
approach. What surprises me really is that you would want to center that
building in that area. It would seem to me that if you would move it further to
Pembroke you could have more greenery, more greenbelt, more privacy.
Mr. Walkon: Mrs. Koons, we will work in that direction. If you really to attract the top
echelon tenants . The tenants that are at the $25.00 a foot range, you have two
streets here. You have Pembroke and you have Newburgh. You want the
building somehow where there is an entrance on both sides. So that the
building doesn't look like it is facing one way, it looks like it is facing both
ways. That is the intention. Can we play with that figure, can we move it
around a little bit, sure.
Mr. Alanskas 120 feet from the south from Dinan's property, is there a wetlands going across
that property?
Mr. Walkon: On the property behind us?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes
Mr. Walkon: I don't know but I was told by Mr. Trupiano who I assume is the owner of the
property, and he said that a great deal of it is wet.
Mr. Alanskas: If it is wetlands, you couldn't build in there anyway so you would have at least
120 feet from the neighbors if you built a building there.
Mr. Walkon: To the west?
Mr. Alanskas: No,to the south. To the south you would probably get 120 feet from the
neighbors to the lot line of Dinan's building the . It is all wetlands continue
across the property you are looking at you couldn't build on that property
anyway, on that 120 feet.
Mr. Walkon: No, we don't believe they do continue.
Mr. Alanskas: You just said you thought it did.
Mr. Walkon: I thought you were referring tot he property west, between ourselves and John
Dinan.
Mr. Alanskas: No, south.
Mr. Walkon: No. We don't believe that has wetlands, however we are going to find out and
we have already sent for a wetlands expert to find out if there is any wetlands
�"' on the property. We should have that report within a couple weeks.
16982
Mr. Alanskas: Because if that is true,that would solve a problems for us and for you and for
the neighbors. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. I think there is a few people out there
itching to say something. Again, right and left and I will alternate between us
and give us your name and address tell you what you would like.
Sharon Ambroziak, 37502 St. Martins, I am in the house that is directly south of the property
that is being proposed to be rezoned. I am opposed to this rezoning. Not only
am I a Livonia homeowner, but I am also a Livonia realtor, right across the
street at Center 21 Hartford North. We get phone calls, numerous, per week,
from people looking for upscale housing in Livonia. It is not available and
there is a demand for it. We don't have enough available yet currently within
our 1/2 mile area. We are in excess of 500,000 sq. ft. of unleased office
space. And that doesn't even include the fact that Victor Parkway is not
completely developed. The property that some of the offices that are
currently being leased in our area, are from office users that are coming from
the east end of Livonia locating to the west end of Livonia, therefore, leaving
a lot of office space available in the east end of Livonia. I feel that the
property would be a beautiful small residential sub that could demand top
dollar for our area and increase the value of our current homes and not
decrease it. I understand the purpose of this rezoning is to carry on the office
buildings that are on Pembroke but where does it stop? It is saying now that
it will go down Pembroke and will never make the turn onto Newburgh but I
have seen that happen before in real estate. I have also seen people go in front
of a board and propose one thing and by the time it is a complete different
issue. As far as how many trees separate my property from the rezoning, in
the spring, winter and fall I can see the post office now. There are very few
trees separating my land from the land that is being proposed to be rezoned.
The property is breath taking and condominiums or residential houses, I
certainly would not be opposed to because I know there is a demand for them.
But as far as office space, I have a real problem with that. Thank you.
Ann Swansinger, 19545 Newburgh Road. We border the property to the south. We are 360
feet to the south so we are a big part of it. In Marvin Walkon's petition he
points that offices would be a logical extension of the adjoining OS district
but to the contrary, it would be just as logical to keep the zoning as is and
build more residential that would be consistent with the already adjoining
residential Thank you. That is my comment.
Walter Ustes, 19766 Ashley Ct., Homeowners Association President of Whispering Hills.
When this first came to my attention, there are a number of neighbors that
approached me and one in particular, the only one in particular that I really
want to talk about, Jim Florence who happens to be here, I thought he would
not be here. Thanks for coming Jim. He happens to own a home right there
abutted up right next to the golf course. His home is the closest to the one
Walkon home, that property that is concerned, he looks at that piece of
property and that is a beautiful piece of property. He liked buying that
particular lot because what he saw there was a wonderful sight to see and now
16983
this has come up, the rezoning issue. His home is 3700 sq. ft. There are other
homes well in excess of 3,000 sq. ft. in our association. There isn't a home
`�.. bigger than that one in a long distance away. What is going to happen to the
value of that property? This is our big concern and this is why I would like to
address Jim Florence's concern about property values. WE would like to see
it stay residential. Thank you.
Jeff Plasins, 37754 St. Martins and I built my home in 1994. I adamantly oppose this
rezoning petition. As you are fully aware the Newburgh corridor between
Seven and Eight Mile Roads consists of, or provides direct access to
residential properties. Properties serving the residents of Livonia and our
children. Regional zoning allowances have already been generously granted
for several strip malls on Newburgh north of Seven Mile Road. Sector Six
already has a very large area dedicated to commercial and office development
in Victor Parkway. Mr. Walkon proposal to rezone the two residential
properties to office services does not fit into this community. It is complete
overkill in the most absurd way. Development of this kind will dramatically
increase traffic on Newburgh. I already have a difficult time getting in and
out on Newburgh now. The traffic burden would be detrimental to my own
child's safety going to and coming from school, as well as crossing Newburgh
to visit his friends in the Willow Wood Subdivision. It would negatively
impact the quality of life for the surrounding community and destroy any
whatever serenity remains for the local citizens of Livonia, The patrons of
Whispering Willows Golf Course and Livonia's historic treasure, Greenmead.
`, The only sensible decision this commission can make is to deny Petition 99-6-
1-6 and maintain sanity and sensibility for Livonia City Planning within the
southeast quarter of sector 6. To do otherwise would ultimately defeat any
financial incentive to the City of Livonia because whatever property tax base
Livonia might gain from Mr. Walkon's proposed development, it would be
lost due to residential property devaluation in the surrounding community. I
know I won't want to live in Livonia concentrated on becoming industrial and
commercial in sector 6 instead of a community for families. Oppose this
petition, vote it down and send a very clear message to Mr. Walkon and any
other zealous developers that believe they can walk all over us. Livonia is for
families. Thank you.
Ron Olszewski, 37616 St. Martins Probably compared to most of my neighbors I was
probably one of the initial builders on the block being there approximately 12
years. During that period of time I have seen a lot of development, all the
subs, the east side of Newburgh nothing that was there when I first moved in
and built. I guess some of the concerns that we do have is the fact of the
discussion which was a little bit vague on the issue of ingress and egress. If
Newburgh Road is going to be used, it is going to congest a lot of problems
for us exiting St. Martins. Most of the people who leave for work in the
morning right now can barely get out onto Newburgh. In the evening traffic
from Seven Mile is backed up all the way to our street and if you are trying to
come home and you are hanging in that center turn lane you are waiting for
several minutes, a lot of times until people just considerately open up a space
for you to turn onto that street. You put a building up this size at that corner
16984
and give the ingress and egress to Newburgh those lines of traffic are going to
be lining up along that center lane again all the way past our street to get in to
�.. their offices in the morning and they are going to be lining when they start
exiting going home in the evening. In addition to that I watched a
development on wetlands. It doesn't seem to matter. Eight or nine years ago I
sat with Mr. Dillan and we wanted he built those buildings behind us on
Pembroke he took the first lot that was extreme west because that one didn't
have the extreme amount of wetlands. All of a sudden the home got built. I
watch some of my neighbors have problems with their basements. I have
listened to lot of contractors and developers coming before this Planning
Board making numerous representations especially about berm areas. One of
them right now,I have a neighbor whose berm is about 100 foot ski sloop, a
mound of dirt that was just pushed up behind his house to obscure the view of
the new building that just put up. He planted maybe a dozen Christmas trees
which have all died and now they are nice and brown. It is an ugly
monstrosity for my neighbor. His basement leaks because I watched the
contractor set the foundation for his cement basement walls in water and pour
the foundation and within 24 to 48 hours he set up the walls and poured his
concrete walls. Water destroyed the integrity of that foundation. His
basement is cracked. It is leaking. I have watched a lot of this go on by
presentations of various developers and builders. We have come to the
meetings, we have made representation to our Planning Board members, our
City Council members and still a lot of this development goes forward.
Frustration levels are high because we make the same representations. We
live here, this is our home. This type of building at this type location destroys
what is a beautiful piece of property. In extent of the berm materials that they
are talking about, we have been here before even about Victor Corporate Park
to find out that the berm that he was suppose to establish at the end of our
street is now nothing but just an over grown bunch of weeds doesn't have to
be done until he is done with his whole development of Victor Corporate
Park. Projected to be done in the year 2025. When initially we were told 12
or 13 years ago that he would put these trees in and he would make us a nice
berm. These things never materialize but we are always given these
representations by various developers. I am not saying this man is going to do
it. I don't know. I have never dealt with him or talked to him personally but
the frustration level and our concerns as citizens of this community, as based
upon past practices and the relationships or what we have been told by various
developers and builders and then what we end up receiving. Last issue,
whether it is going to go all the way down St. Martins street. All I can do is
tell you Chuck at the corner took his house off the market because he has been
approached by All State They intend to take all of Newburgh. Then what
you do you have a few residential homes facing Newburgh between St.
Martins and Northland. That is going to be the only portion of real residential
community. I guess on behalf of most of the people here we asking that this
not be approved and that we oppose it. Thank you.
Marco Pesce, 37534 St. Martins. I live right behind the proposed property over there. I am
one of the two lots that is fully behind this monster over here. I don't know
how much more I can add on what all my neighbors have already said other
16985
than I am probably closest to this thing than any of them along with the
Ambroziaks. I moved over here for the reason for the beauty, for the area
over there and just to think what I could be staring at every morning. It makes
me sick. I appreciate all of the concerns of Mr. Walkon. He seems to agree
with everything we are saying right now. We'll do this, we'll do that, we'll
talk to you, beautiful. Why are we here, if he is going to agree to everything?
Furthermore, he said he won't purchase the properties to the south along
Newburgh, well maybe he won't, but someone else could and if that gets
rezoned, I'm sure the other people will try to rezone the other piece. Right
now I can't even get into my street. I have been working in the City of
Livonia, supporting the community and everybody and the City for 10 years
now. I chose to build a house near where I work and I don't want someone
with lots of connections and lots of great projects in this city, I would just hate
for someone to come and rip away from me and my family the house that I
worked for.
Mr. McCann: Sir, let's keep it civil. He presented a petition which he has a right to do. He
is a developer in this city. He has done good projects. Whether this is an
appropriate project for the corner is what we are here for tonight. I do not
want personal attacks, especially a person who has donated much of his time,
efforts and money to the community. It doesn't mean it is the proper project
and that is all we want to night. We do want your comments but please let's
keep it professional.
Mr. Pesce: I meant no disrespect to anybody. That is just exactly the way I feel though.
He mentioned that, I didn't know he did all these things in Livonia so I am
just repeating what he said. That is all I can tell you. As far as my property is
concerned, I am very upset. I think that is understandable. What else am I
suppose to do but express my feelings? That is why we are here.
Mr.McCann: We are here tonight for the zoning. Whether or not it is proper zoning and the
reasons everybody feels that it is improper. Your comments regarding traffic,
your comments whether it is appropriate to change it from RUF to Offices is
are all extremely important. We are deeply interested.
Mr. Pesce: Well that is great. Since he brought that up to begin with, I have nothing
more to say other than I hope that you do not consider this project or if you
do, do it the same way as the other buildings on Pembroke and I think that
would be acceptable. I think for most people here and I think that would
work for everybody. Thank you.
Ron Riggio, 37204 Bretton, Lot 13 Willow Woods Subdivision. I am here because of this
building that is a 85,000 sq. ft. That is a pretty big building, a two story
building on the corner of Pembroke and Newburgh. If he wants a corner I
think on Pembroke and Victor Parkway there is a corner there. Any ways you
access to Eight Mile Road and you have access to Seven Mile Road off of
Pembroke. He says it is a premier building, well Willow Woods Subdivision
is a premier subdivision. That is why I moved there nine years ago. To have
a building like that on the corner of Newburgh and Pembroke is just too big.
16986
It is too monstrous. No matter how many berms you put up there, you can
still see that building very clearly. When you have access, which there will be
`w an access from Newburgh, with 85,000 sq. ft. that is a lot of traffic going in
there and coming out. You figure those people will be leaving about 4:30 or
5:00 that is when I will be coming home. There will be traffic lined up, like
other people have said, from the corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh all the
way back to the post office. It's horrendous now. It's horrendous most of it
is due to the traffic and construction on 275. But you have the show,the 20
cinema show there. That brings in traffic. You have the post office, that
brings in traffic all around. You have the golf course, that brings in traffic
and on the weekends you have the park for construction workers and people
for their fines that work along the side of the road so that means you have
traffic 7 days a week. This would be an influx of more traffic. So Newburgh
between Seven Mile and Eight Mile is going to be horrendous. I don't want to
see that. I have two kids that will go up and down Newburgh and the traffic is
just devastating now so that means there is going to be more lights. So they
will add another traffic light. He says this is going to be the cream d' la cream
people making $25.00 an hour and up there in software. How much of that is
going to stay in the City of Livonia? We have people in Livonia, in the
community, in that area in Willow Woods and the surrounding area behind
the park way that it is a rural community and we want to keep it that way. We
don't want strangers coming from different communities into ours. We know
just about everybody in there and it's not a hi/hello how are you, but we know
people there and now you are going to make to so busy and so business like,
we won't know anybody. So I am asking you to reconsider and make it a
residential area, the way it should be. Thank you very much.
Rita DeFlaviis, 19657 Ashley Court. I live in Whispering Hills Subdivision which is right in
front of Whispering Woods Subdivision. We face, our properties face, the
new sub. Willow Woods and Whispering Hills, we don't have any other
access out of our subdivision besides St. Martins and to Newburgh. There is
no way for us to get out. If there is an accident or if there is anything, we
have no way. When they were doing construction on 7, 8 and Newburgh, we
couldn't get into our sub. We have more parking for people coming, it will
just be more traffic. I have two children, one is a teenager and one is in
college. She is driving. She's going to have to get in and out. It takes me 45
minutes during rush hour traffic to get my son to Bi-centennial for soccer. It
is ridiculous. St. Martins, the people right across from them, that is there
only access. They don't have another entrance or exit out. If there is an
accident of 275,if there is anything anywhere, everybody takes Newburgh or
Haggerty. We can't get out of our sub now. I don't care how beautiful the
building will be. I don't care about the looks,I am talking traffic. Traffic
from Victor Parkway. We get traffic everywhere. When it is Christmas,
we've got the post office. I hear, when I stay home, and I see so many
accidents where people are turning left to get to the post office and people are
turning into the left hand lane. There is no left hand turn lane there. We've
also got an island on Pembroke in between the post office and this house.
How are they going to get in and out of there? You can't even get into the
post office now. That parking lot is so hard to get into and maneuver , if we
16987
had a building right next too it, I can't see how feasible anything that they do
in that spot would be. I just don't think we have enough room for more cars.
I don't know about most of you but most of us in our subdivision, 8:00 is
when we get out and go to work. None of us go at 4:00 o'clock in the
morning. We go when they are coming in. Lunch time I have to go do
something at lunch. That traffic is there and then when they are leaving at
5:00 we are trying to get somewhere with our families and you can't. My
problem is the traffic. I can't see the parking. I don't really want to look at the
building but if the building is there, what can I do. What I am saying it is not
safe. It is not safe for our children living in that subdivision . Most of the
people that live there make quite a bit of money and probably do make the
type of money he is planning for these people to come for. We all have nice
houses. We all like Livonia and we all moved in that area so that it could be
a high end area of residential lots. My concern is safety and the terrible
traffic that we have not.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Jim Messineo, 37218 Fairfax, Willow Woods Subdivision, Lot #1. I am an engineer with
Wade Trim Associates. The concern I have that everybody has here, is
traffic. I am wondering if a traffic study is planned and not just a traffic
study of Newburgh. I mean a proper study that would entail the timing of
lights. The other issue is that there is a lot of parking that needs to be put in
place for a building of that size that also greatly affects the storm water
runoff. The recent storms that we just had the properties and the street on St.
Martins behind this complex had some flooding. It was a concern to all the
residents.
Mr. McCann: Tonight, again, we are dealing with the zoning I understand your concern
that is an engineering question that they would have to work out with the 100
year flood plain and all of that would have to be worked with Engineering
Department before they could get a building permit. None of us are engineers
up here so we are trying to stick with the zoning and what type of use is
proper.
Mr. Messineo: That is an engineering question but it also goes along with the type of zoning.
If you put a residential property there, you've got a lot of ground cover.
Ground cover affects the storm water different than a parking lot. Water just
runs off. The other issue you've got again is the sanitary system and a SSSEC
and planned sanitary sewer evaluation study. Is that being planned as to how
that impacts both on the east and west side of Newburgh Road. These are
some important issues for a building of that size. I think they should be
considered.
Frank Judd, 37571 St. Martins. The reason I moved into this community was because of the
zoning and because it was rural and it was residential and I had no idea we
would have commercial buildings going up right behind us. Since the
commercial buildings have gone up, they are one story. I would hate to look
at a two story building. I guess that is really what I don't understand but I
16988
guess it is the feasibility of making money. I am concerned about the traffic,
water runoff and everything else that we have to deal with since we've had
`1.. commercial property now behind us. I would just like to ask, would you
people like a two story building in your back yard? Take it from there.
Bobby Kramer, 37615 St. Martins. We moved to Livonia about 5 years ago because we were
attracted to the trees and especially to our street, St. Martins, because it was
very forested. It was a dead end. It was very quiet. The development on
Victor Parkway didn't really bother us. In the winter time we can see the
office buildings. A two story office building does not fit in with our
neighborhood at all. It's going to tower over the buildings. They are going to
have lights on at night and three out of four seasons you are going to be able
to see that all the way down St. Martins. The traffic already is terrible. Just
this fall it took my husband a half hour to get from Eight Mile to Seven Mile.
That is a half hour to go a mile. The traffic is outrageous. We cannot get in
and out of our street during normal rush hour periods. This building would
look at homes at the other end of Pembroke where the other office buildings
are. It would tower over the post office. It doesn't even blend in with
anything at that end of the street. I am not anti-progress. I happen to be pro-
trees and pro-green land but I am not anti-progress. I think the suggestion
earlier where you developed a portion of the property that faced Pembroke,
put in residential houses on the rest of the property, that is the most positive
thing I have heard so far this evening but I would also suggest that the
building be downscaled down to one story to fit in with the other office
sew buildings on Pembroke which all single story. They are all very deep in the
woods. They don't offend you when you drive down Pembroke. They fit in
with the area. This building it just jumps out at you. I'm sure that it would
attract all those people, we don't need something that big. We don't need the
traffic. We don't need the lights. We don't need the parking lot lights that
will be on all night. We don't need the office lights that we are all going to
see from our houses at night. We certainly don't need the traffic. We have a
lot of children in our neighborhood and a lot of them are getting to the ages
now where they are mobile. They want to go across the street to their friends
over in the other subdivision. They want to run up and down. Right now you
can walk down the street and you can go to Greenmead. You walk on grass
the whole way. The only street you have to cross is Pembroke. You don't
have to dodge cars going in and out of driveways for an office building. I
think an exit on to Newburgh is crazy. I'm sorry that is an emotional word but
I don't think we need anymore commercial exits onto Newburgh. I think there
is too much traffic there now. I really think, done right, I would support that
split between a residential development and an office development that faced
on to Pembroke, with a driveway that faced on to Pembroke. But I would
also like for those peoples sake, the hypothetical people living in those,they
are not going to way to have a driveway within, and I'm not sure now because
we went from, we started out talking 40 feet to 50 feet and now we are talking
about a 30 foot berm. I would not want to live with my back door 30 feet
from a parking lot. That is not why we moved to St. Martins. That is not why
``� we moved to Livonia. I personally at this moment, with this project,
16989
presented the way it has been tonight, I would ask you to deny the zoning
change.
Matt Glover, 37745 Northland. About three years there was a project to rezone RUFC to OS
and that was the Oakwood Hospital. I led the group that opposed and the
precedent has been set in our area and it was shot down by the Council. There
were a number of proposals put forward by Oakwood Hospital to put a berm
in the area to protect Bethany and the back of Northland. It were proposals to
cut down the footprint of the building but it came down to simple zoning .
We did not need more OS in our area. We happen to be a group,Bethany,
Northland and St. Martins, that surrounded by OS. The tract for Victor
Parkway was set up to be OS. Not taking our RUFC zoned area and turning
them into OS so the precedent has been set and I don't think it is appropriate
to rezone this when you have the room in Victor Parkway. As you see the
piece that Oakwood Hospital has now after all the controversy, after the
Council set it down,they sued the City and they haven't gotten anywhere.
They are actually selling parts of the parcel. The parcel is restricted use but it
still has not been developed at this point. For all the reasons St. Martins and
all the residents on St. Martins have said are the same reasons that we brought
up Northland and Bethany, the residents, about this Oakwood rezoning, it is
not good for the area. The traffic studies that were done show that there were
large amounts of traffic in the area and were having problems. That is not
even including what will happen when Oakwood Hospital puts their piece in
there. So,I would just say that I would oppose the rezoning. I know this is a
'glowlong process but the precedent has been set, we do not want another OS in this
area.
Jack Lee, 37567 St. Martins. Along with my neighbors, the whole safety issue and the traffic.
All those issues I am very concerned about, I have two young children. The
biggest issue, my wife is also a real estate agent, along with Sharon, the fact
she brings up is that there is 500,000 sq. ft. of empty office space right now.
There is office space all over Livonia, all up and down Haggerty, all over the
place. Now when you start talking about buildable lots, like I said, they are
both real estate agents. Up and down our street constantly are people looking
for good nice buildable pieces of property. That is a beautiful neighborhood
right there. Choice. I don't exactly the numbers, but if you took from St.
Martins to Pembroke and you developed 16 houses. I know of a handful of
builders, myself, that would jump on all of those lots, construct 3,000 sq. ft.
homes to match across the street, up and down our neighborhood. It just
makes common sense. What is going to happen when the economy slows
down and all of this office space? The homes, we need more buildable nice
pieces of property. As I say, I know plenty of builders that would jump all
over those pieces of property if it stayed residential and if he wants to sell his
corner property and all that. That thing there belongs on Haggerty Road.
Thank you.
Mr. Ambroziak, 37502 St. Martins. I would just like to make a couple of points. We talk
about traffic up from this building but if this building goes in we also have the
whole Victor Parkway as well as Pembroke that still has to be developed
16990
which we have all this empty space over there which will also add more
traffic on top of something like this. When this petition first came to my
`r.. house, I talked to this gentlemen(Al Nowak) and we are talking about traffic
during the day time. We are also talking about, with this zoning, this building
could be a 24 hour a day operation. We could have people coming and going
there around the clock and that defmitely does not fit in with the
neighborhood. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I don't see anyone else to speak, Mr. Walkon do you have any final
comments,then I am going to close the Public Hearing.
Mr.Walkon: I want to thank you for spending the time. I took notes. I listened carefully.
Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann: The Public Hearing is closed. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved it was
#7-123-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 13,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-6-1-6 by Marvin
Walkon proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh
Road between Pembroke Street and St. Martins Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6 from RUFC to OS,the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-6-1-6 be tabled to August 10,
1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This is going to be tabled to August 10, 1999. You or your representatives
may be present. Now that one fortunately is a Regular Meeting so we will be
here in the auditorium. Everybody is entitled to come. Again, you are not
allowed to speak unless we have unanimous consent from the Planning
Commission on a pending item. This doesn't mean we have approved. This
doesn't mean we denied but we are going to take into consideration your
comments and the petitioner's comments to see what he can do to comply with
requests of the Planning Commission and the people's in the audience. I am
giving you the notice tonight. Unless there is a change, we will be there that
night to give any notice of change.
Audience Member: Will we be notified?
Mr. McCann: We are going to be here and Mr. Walkon is going to be here and we are going
to vote on it that night unless there is some major reason why we shouldn't
and we will certainly make sure everybody in the audience is aware of it. Mr.
Walkon will be in the audience or in the hallway I am sure tonight to give you
his address and phone number so you can individually contact him and give
him your concerns.
Audience Member: On that day will he tell us what he plans or his proposal and can we ask
questions?
16991
Mr. McCann: You may be able to, I can't guarantee it. You need unanimous consent from
`�..- the Planning Commission.
Audience Member: But he is going to tell us his changes?
Mr. McCann: He is going to advise us of what changes he has made in order to try and
comply with the requests of the neighborhood and the Planning Commission.
Audience Member: What will happen to the petitions that we signed and sent to the Planning
Commission?
Mr. McCann: They will become part of the record since it is going to be a pending item.
We will review them. They will become part of the record that is sent on to
the City Council but they will not be read into the record that night.
Audience Member: You said he would go over the plans and make changes according to
what the neighbors recommendations are and the Planning Commissions
recommendations. When will we know what the Planning Commission
recommendations are?
Mr. McCann: Only from the questions that we asked tonight regarding set backs, placement
of the building, size of the building. Basically, your concerns are our
concerns because we are your neighbors.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next petition on the agenda is Petition 99-5-2-17 by Motor
City Ford Truck requesting waiver use approval in connection with a proposal
to construct a parking lot and vehicle display area on property located at the
Northeast corner of Schoolcraft and Eckles Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section19.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. There is a letter dated June 7, 1999,
from the Department of Public Safety, Fire &Rescue, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request
to pave, stripe and light corner vacant property located at the above referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal provided it is understood
this paving does not provide an exemption of any possible future installation
of fire hydrants, should they be required." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. There is a letter from the Engineering Division,
dated June 9, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request,the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The
Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The
Legal Description provided with the site plan is acceptable to this department
and should be used in connection therewith. We trust that this will provide
16992
you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill,
Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter from the Inspection Department
r.,. dated June 14, 1999, which reads as follows: Pursuant to your request of June
3, 1999,the above Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1)
Plan does not specifically specify Class A sod in lawn areas. (2) No
provisions are made for lighting of parking lot. (3) No underground
irrigation is noted. (4) Landscaping appears to be approximately 12% of the
total area. Except as noted above, we have no further objections to this
Petition." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building
Inspector. There is a letter dated June 16, 1999, from the Department of
Public Safety, Division of Police, which reads as follows: "In response to the
captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the construction
of a parking lot as illustrated within the site plans submitted." The letter is
signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of
our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bill Peters, 39300 Schoolcraft Road, Motor City Ford Truck. That real estate is currently
owned by Ford Truck. We are selling more parts, we are selling more
vehicles, we are selling more service, we are hiring more employees. We
have gotten to the point where we need more space. That piece of property
was bought about three or four years ago from the city. It had been vacant
for several years. It was bought I believe with full knowledge we intended to
`r.r turn it into a parking lot in the future. It is on Eckles Road and Schoolcraft.
Eckles Road is a dead end road. It dead ends into route 96 . 96 is probably
500 or 600 feet wide at that point. I don't believe there will ever be a tunnel
or bridge so that road is strictly a dead end road and is never going to go
anywhere. We are looking to build parking lots to allow us to park our
employees as well as additional trucks.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Peters,the truthful thing of business getting better and better. Do you
foresee in the future where you would need for more land for more parking
and more employees, or do you think this will take care of it?
Mr. Peters: No, I think this will take care of it.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: In the notes, it is indicated there were some changes made in the site, did you
go over those to see we've covered everything we talked in terms of
landscaping and lighting and that type of thing?
Mr. Nowak: We have received a revised site plan and landscape plan. The Planning
Commission had indicated that they felt that the entire site area should meet
the requirement of 15% landscaping. Originally as submitted it was about
12% of the total site area. They have now increased the landscaping. They
16993
feet in width. Now it is about 17% of the subject area and about 15% of the
total site area.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Bill, do you have a drawing for us? Can you point out for us
where the increased greenbelt area is?
Mr. Poppenger presented a plan to the Commissioners showing the changes that were made.
Mr. McCann: He talks about the 15 feet along Eckles Road the right-of-way has been
increased. Is there a landscape plan to go along with that to show the type of
vegetation that is going to be put in there?
Mr. Poppenger:On the back of the plan it does show detail landscaping along Schoolcrafl.
Mr. McCann; Mr. Shane, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Shane: No.
Mr. LaPine: I still didn't hear where the additional landscaping is going from what we
originally received.
Mr. Alanskas: Along Eckles. From a three foot berm to a 15 foot berm.
Mr. Peters: I think it is about 255 feet long so that extra 10 feet gives you an additional
`, 2550 extra feet of greenbelt.
Mr. Shane: Does this plan include a sprinkler system?
Mr. McCann: Does the staff know if the plan includes a sprinkler system?
Mrs. Koons: Yes, it is in our approving resolution.
Mr. McCann: We are going to add it whether it is there or not.
Mr. Peters: I don't think the plans indicates any lighting and/or sprinkler system. It just
shows basically how the land is going to be utilized. The fact that you've got
tubing running underneath, we've got an irrigation system at the front of the
existing dealership so it is just a question of connecting it and running it
across.
Mr. McCann: All right. I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience
wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, sir, do you have
any last comments?
Mr. Peters: No.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved it was
16994
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved it was
`�.• #7-124-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 13,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-5-2-17 by Motor City
Ford Truck requesting waiver use approval in connection with a proposal to
construct a parking lot and vehicle display area on property located at the
Northeast corner of Schoolcraft and Eckles Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 19,the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 99-5-2-17 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Paving and Grading Plan, marked Sheet 1 of 2 of Job
No.96018, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., dated July 1, 1999, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscaping Plan, marked Sheet 1 of 1 of Job No. 96018,
prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., dated July 1, 1999, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That proposed lawn areas both on-site and between the site and the
roadways in the Schoolcraft and Eckles Roads rights-of-way shall be
sodded;
4) That underground sprinkles are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition; and
5) That any new site lighting equipment shall be shielded and shall not
exceed 20 feet in height.
For the 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 Sections
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as
amended.
�... Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
16995
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-2-19 by Shkelzen
Kapidani requesting waiver use approval to open and operate a carry-out/sit-
down restaurant with 30 seats to be located within an existing building on the
north side of Joy Road between Newburgh and Hix Roads in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is a letter dated June 11, 1999, from the Engineering Division which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal at this time. The following approximate Legal
Description is acceptable to this department and should be used for petition
purposes only therewith: A parcel of land being situated in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 31, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan being
more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast Corner
of said Section 31, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan
and proceeding thence along the southerly line of said Section 31, Centerline
of Joy Road (120' wide) S. 89°58'40" West, 60.04 feet and N. 02°13'20"
West, 60.00 feet;thence along the northerly right-of-way of Joy Road, S.
89°58'40" West, 649.96 feet;thence N. 00°01'20" West 301.67 feet;thence N.
`.�. 89°58'40" East, 292.40 feet; thence N. 00°01'20" West, 39 feet;thence N.
89°58'30" East, 80 feet to Point of Beginning;thence N. 00°01'20" West, 30
feet;thence N. 89°58'40" East, 65 feet;thence S. 0°01'20" East, 30 feet;
thence S. 89°58'40" West, 65 feet to the point of beginning. We trust that this
will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact
this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill,
Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated July 16, 1999, from the
Department of Public Safety which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to open and
operate a carry-out/sit-down restaurant with 30 seats 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. There is a letter dated
June 16, 1999, from the Department of Safety, Division of Police, which
reads as follows: "The Police Department has no objection to the site plan
submitted for Durresi Restaurant & Coney island. This strip mall has been in
operation for a couple years now and the Police Department has not
experienced any problems with respect to traffic." The letter is signed by
John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated June 22,
1999, from the Inspection Department which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of June 3, 1999,the above noted Petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) Waiver use approval is mandatory for this
proposed use. (2) Accessibility deficiencies will be addressed at plan review
stage if waiver use is granted. (3) We have no objections to this Petition
except as noted above. I trust this provides you with the request3d
16996
information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building
Inspector. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Shkelzen Kapidani, 27002 Joy Road#201, Redford, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about the restaurant you are proposing?
Mr. Kapidani: I took over this lease about three months ago and intended to open a
restaurant in there. It is going to be a family style restaurant with seating but
mostly it is going to be carry-out.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: On the site plan you gave us, these squares, do they indicate tables?
Mr. Kapidani: It was like that but now it is just going to be 30 seats, we have changed the
plan now.
Mr. LaPine: Has this plan been updated showing where the 30 seats are going to be? If I
look at this I count these there are 18 tables and with 4 at a table that is 72
people. I would like to know exactly where the tables are.
``.. Mr. Kapidani: When I gave the plans to the Planning Department it was different then.
When I brought the plan in to be checked, I wrote down on there that there is
just going to be 30 seats.
Mr. LaPine: I understand that.
Mr. Kapidani: I promise it is not going to be more than that for sure.
Mrs. Koons: Sir, you have had the lease for three months already?
Mr. Kapidani: Yes.
Mrs. Koons: Have you done anything to the inside?
Mr. Kapidani: We had an incident, my contractor passed away so we are in a bind.
Mrs. Koons: So have you put any tables in yet?
Mr. Kapidani: No. We are working on the plumbing now. We want to fmish that then we
will fmish the rest of the work.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, have you ever been this type of business before?
Mr. Kapidani: Yes. I already have a restaurant on Telegraph Road between Joy and West
Chicago.
16997
Mr. Alanskas: On Telegraph Road between Joy and West Chicago?
Mr. Kapidani: With the same name.
Mr. Alanskas: Which side of the street on Telegraph?
Mr. Kapidani: On the east side. It is next to MacDonalds.
Mr. Alanskas: Is it a coney island?
Mr. Kapidani: Yes. A coney island.
Mr. Alanskas: How many seats do you have there?
Mr. Kapidani: We've got 52 now.
Mr. Alanskas: How long have you been there?
Mr. Kapidani: I have been there for almost four years.
Mr. Alanskas: You are going to keep that one and have this one also?
Mr. Kapidani: Yes. I sold half of it with a partner and I am going to go there and open that
Nowbusiness.
Mr. Alanskas: So you are going from a restaurant that has more seats down to a restaurant
that has less seats?
Mr. Kapidani: I was going to make more seats in there but I didn't before I signed the lease, I
didn't know the zoning was C-l. When I figured this out, I couldn't get out of
this lease. My attorney didn't advise me to leave the lease.
Mr. Alanskas: How long is your lease for?
Mr. Kapidani: Five years.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: I don't suppose the owner of the shopping center is here tonight but I wanted
to note that when I checked the site, it leaves a bit to be desired of the
housekeeping to the back of the buildings. I don't know if we could direct a
letter to the Inspection Department to take a look at it or not.
Mr. McCann: We could direct a letter to the Inspection Department.
Mr. Shane: There is a lot of debris at the back of the building and the dumpster doors are
`'`� open and it is not in very good shape.
16998
Mr. McCann: Mfr. Taormina, if you could advise the Building Inspector to take a look at
that? Are there any other questions at this point?
Mr. Kapidani: All this happened because our contractor, who passed away, I did not know
what to do with his things. Now I am going to take over everything and I am
going to straighten it up myself. Because of the incident now I have deal with
everyone, the plumbers and with the people who pick up the dumpster. This
happened because of the people from the cleaners next door. They use our
dumpster instead of using theirs.
Mr. McCann: You understand that it is your responsibility if you are taking care of that or if
you are putting stuff out there that these neighbors have to live with it whether
it is someone else's fault or not.
Mr. Kapidani: Yeah, I know, but before now it was in his hands to take care of these things
that I didn't care about because it was his job to do it. But you for a little
while and it happens and now I didn't know what to do.
Mr. Alanskas: What are your hours going to be there and how many days a week?
Mr. Kapidani: It is going to be seven days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas: From 7 in the morning until 9 in the evening?
`.. Mr. Kapidani: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Gary Doherty, 37521 Northfield. Livonia resident for 32 years. Lot 27 , if you could look at
your petition, is my property, my house. These are new homes. They are
five years old. We built our home before we knew there was going to be a
strip mall behind the property. I will tell you that the biggest with this strip
mall is that is it too close to the residential homes. The Planning
Commission, whether it was the previous one of this one currently , pushed
that strip mall back to give it more aesthetic ability to front of Newburgh. As
a result, my house, or more specifically, my kitchen table, is about the same
space as to the gentleman petitioning for this coney island. That would be at
his back door. I don't think that is a very appropriate place to have a full
service restaurant. Nothing against coney island, I happen to enjoy coney
islands on occasion but I just would not want to smell the onions, the hot
dogs,the bacon and the eggs from 7:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night. If
you haven't been out there, and you said you've been out there,there is
already somewhat of a problem with garbage. This would by far compound
that problem. If you haven't been out on the site, before you rule or before
you decide, I would suggest you take a look at it because it is literally that
`'� close to my house. We have several other homes in that area as well.
16999
Mrs. Koons: Sir, what was in that spot before. What went out of business?
`.. Mr. Doherty: There was a donut shop there. That one location has been vacant. One other
thing I would like to point out is that there are three other restaurants or take
out restaurants in that strip mall right now. I believe there are seven total
spaces. There is a Subway, a Papa Romano's and a Dairy Queen. I think that
is plenty. As far as the landlord is concerned, maybe there are other
businesses that could tribute to his rent or that could fill that spot. But to have
four restaurants, not one being a sit down full service restaurant out of seven
places, is just too much. Between the garbage, which is a big problem,
deliveries, and now this is going to be the earliest operating business in that
strip mall. There are very few hours during the day that we have any peace
back there. One being the morning and at night when they close. Of course,
now if he is going to be opening at 7:00 he will have to open his shop for his
restaurant at 6:00 or 6:30 , which is just going to continue to disturb the
neighborhood. With that in mind, I would recommend the Board deny the
petition and for the record, we are here to discuss the approval or disapproval
of this location and there has already been remodeling going on for a good 90
days now. A lease has been signed, which I guess I am not all that familiar
with the procedures, I take offense to that. If this is suppose to be a public
hearing on the approval, something that directly affects me daily, I just take
offense to the fact that they have already basically moved in.
Mr. McCann: I think there was a misunderstanding on his part. He didn't know he had to
`10• get City approval and obviously the landlord did not tell him prior to signing
the lease. This was a mistake on his part.
Mr. LaPine: Unfortunately I did not check this out. I am sorry about that. Is there a
masonry wall behind there?
Mr. Doherty: There is. It is about six feet high on the opposite side which puts it about five
feet high on my side. Fortunately, the grade of my house is higher than the
parking lot. I can literally look from me to you and see the dumpster.
Mr. LaPine: And the dumpster is directly behind your home?
Mr. Doherty: There are two of them directly behind my home.
Mr. McCann: Are there any further questions? If not,I will go on to the next resident.
Mr. Doherty: Thank you.
Ron Canfield, 37522 Northfield, Lot 26, directly across the street from Terry. We have the
same problem, the garbage. Every time there is a windy day we get a lot of it
is the carry-out garbage and kitchen garbage that they have. It is a constant
problem and it is a little bit of overkill to put four restaurants in a small strip
mall like that. They are going to put them out of business.. They are going
to cut their own throats. Basically that is all I have to say.
17000
Lori Spohn,37544 Northfield, Lot 25. My concern is the same as Mr. Canfield's and Mr.
Doherty's. I strongly oppose the coney island. What assurance what I have
`.. that I would not be smelling onions, hamburgers, hot dogs or whatever other
delicacies he will sell or offer. I do not want to step out of my home and feel
as if I am at the corner of Five Mile and Farmington Road in front of Bate's
Burgers. When we built these homes we were unaware that this was going to
happen to us. When this came in they told we wouldn't smell Subway. We
smell Subway. As my neighbors expressed we do have a brick wall. The
garbage is just thrown over and it is absolutely ridiculous. I believe there are
too many restaurants in this small space. I can't understand why the owner of
this mall does get a real estate office, a florist or a card shop, anything. Why
so much food in such a small space? I hope that you will turn this proposal
down. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go back to the petitioner. Did the landlord advise you to when
you signed the lease, did you advise him what you were going to use the
property for?
Mr. Kapidani: Yes. I told him I was going to use the property for a coney island and that I
would have a full size coney island in there.
Mr. McCann: And he did not tell you that you had to have City approval?
Mr. Kapidani: No, he did not.
Mr. McCann: He did not tell you that. He just told you that you could operate a full service
restaurant?
Mr. Kapidani: Yes.
Mr. LcPine: You being our legal advisor, if he is denied, does he any recourse?
Mr. McCann: Without looking at the lease and without being party to the situation, I believe
that the landlord cannot fill his obligation therefore the ability for him to
perform under the lease would be impossible and therefore the lease should
become void. He would have to seek legal counsel to review the documents
and review the circumstances.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? Sir, do you have any other comments to
make?
Mr. Kapidani: No sir.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
``' Mr. Hale: I will make a motion to table this petition.
17001
Mr. Kapidani: I already have a permit to start working there as a carry-out only so this was
the reason fixing the place.
Mr. Shane: If I am not mistaken, he can operate as a carry-out only without waiver use
approval. I defer to staff on that.
Mr. Nowak: That's right. As long as he didn't have any seats, he could operate it as a
carry-out. I think when he went to get his occupancy permit through the
Inspection Department, he told them he had already signed a lease and they
said he could go ahead and do some work on the basis that it will be a carry-
out while he is applying for the waiver use approval for the seating. They
advised him that he was taking a risk in doing that.
Mr. McCann: What I would like is for him to review with his attorney and the landlord
whether or not he can fill the conditions that it was suppose to be a full seat
restaurant and he can't perform under that.
Mr. Shane: My point was he could operate but in the meantime, it won't shut him
completely but he could operate.
Mr. McCann: Is there support for the motion to table?
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was
�, #7-125-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 13,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-5-2-19 by Shkelzen
Kapidani requesting waiver use approval to open and operate a carry-out/sit-
down restaurant with 30 seats to be located within an existing building on the
north side of Joy Road between Newburgh and Hix Roads in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-5-2-19 be tabled to July 27, 1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The residents are welcome to come to that meeting as well. Thank you for
your participation. We will be addressing the issues that you brought forward
tonight.
Mr. LaPine: Sir, do you have an attorney?
Mr. Kapidani: Yes I do.
Mr. LaPine: You better talk to your attorney and see what legal options you have.
Mr. Kapidani: I talked to him already. I wanted to get out this lease more than anybody. I
did not want to open this restaurant with 30 seats because at this time, I
cannot afford it.
17002
Mr. Lapin: If I was you, I would talk to your attorney again and tell him what happened
here tonight because I think you might have a tough time getting this thing
passed.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-2-20 by Angelo
D'Orazio requesting waiver use approval to operate a bank with drive-thru
banking facilities within a portion of an existing building located on the
Southwest corner of Schoolcraft Road and Surrey Avenue in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 28.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first is dated June 11, 1999, from
the Engineering Division which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The
Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal
description provided with the site plan is acceptable to this department and
should be used in connection therewith. We trust that this will provide you
with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you
have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. There is a letter dated June 16, 1999, from the Department of
,,%w Public Safety, Livonia Fire &Rescue, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a
bank within a portion of an existing building 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. There is a letter dated June 16,
1999, from the Department of Public Safety, Division of Police, which reads
as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has
no objection to the site plan as submitted. The handicap spaces must be
posted with signs according to the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices; no signs appear on the site plan." The letter is signed by
John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated June 22,
1999, from the Inspection Department which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
our request of June 3, 1999,the above referenced Petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) Landscaping amount appears appropriate.
However,type of sod, plant material and required irrigation has not been
addressed on the plan. (2) Required parking lighting is not detailed as to type
and height. (3) This proposed usage will also require a zoning variance for
the deficient east side yard setback(required 25 feet, provided 7 feet). (4)
The accessible parking as depicted is incorrect. Two spaces would be
required (nearest to main entrance(s), one being eight feet wide with an eight
foot aisle and one being eight foot wide with a five foot aisle. (5) All parking
areas must be double striped. (6) An old sign base to the north of the
building should be removed. (7) Existing landscape needs attention and
some existing trees need trimming. (8) We have o objections to this project
except as noted above. I trust this provides you with the requested
17003
information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building
Inspector. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Angelo D'Orazio, 35213 Vargo, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about your project?
Mr. D'Orazio: We were going to build an office building but now the bank is interested in
moving in and we want to make a full service bank. The drive-in used to be
on the south side of the building and now we want to put it on the east side of
the building which there is not much traffic there now.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. D'Orazio, your office will be in the back of the building?
Mr. D'Orazio: Yes, my office will be in the back of the building.
Mr.Alanskas: Instead of where it was going to be in the front?
Mr. D'Orazio: It's going to be a branch for the Old Kent Bank plus if they have a main office
and loan offices.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the Old Kent Bank aware that we have already had two banks in that
building that there were not there too long.
Mr. D'Orazio: Oh, they will be there a long time. They have a 10 year lease.
Mr. McCann: At least they will pay rent for a long time.
Mr. Alanskas: I know it is going to be all brick because you have that almost done already.
Mr. D'Orazio: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Do you have the drawings for us tonight that we requested?
Mr. D'Orazio: It is a completely remodeled building. It is an old building. We raised the
building up four feet. You can see it is all brick and dryvit.
Mr. McCann: It is all brick and dryvit?
Mr. D'Orazio: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Is that dryvit going all the way down on the drive-thru to the ground there?
Mr. D'Orazio: The brick will be all the same level and over here.
17004
Mr. McCann: Yes, right there. Is that going to be brick too?
Mr. D'Orazio: Yes, that is going to be brick
Mr. McCann: You're not going to have dryvit over there? Because we are concerned about
is that dryvit can be chipped where brick is more durable.
Mr. D'Orazio That is why I brought all the brick up to the window level.
Mr. McCann: O.K. You don't show brick at the drive-thru.
Mr. D'Orazio: This piece is going to brick like this.
Mr. McCann: All right. Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: How many cars can you stack up at the drive-thru? How many cars can be
lined up at one time?
Mr. D'Orazio: I represent Old Kent Bank so maybe they can answer that question.
Mr. LaPine: Secondly, you come in off of Schoolcraft Road and go behind the building
and around to the drive-thru window? Is that the way it is going to work?
Mr. D'Orazio: They can come in off of Surrey and drive around.
Mr. LaPine: Oh, they come in off of Surrey, too?
Mr. D'Orazio: Yes. They have two exits at Schoolcraft.
Mr. LaPine: But then they have to go across the front of the building behind and because
you only come in from the back end.
Mr. D'Orazio: No. They can come in both ways. They can come in from Surrey and come
in from the west of the building too
Mr. LaPine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: Are there any further questions? Hearing none, I will go to the audience. Is
there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, I am going to close the public hearing.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved it was
#7-126-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 13,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-6-2-20 by Angelo
D'Orazio requesting waiver use approval to operate a bank with drive-thru
banking facilities with a portion of an existing building located on the
Southwest corner of Schoolcraft road and Surrey Avenue in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 28, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
17005
Council that Petition 99-6-2-20 be approved subject to the granting of a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient east side yard setback
`` for the proposed canopy structure and also subject to the following additional
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 2 of Job Number 9803 prepared by
Michael L. Priest &Associates, Inc., dated May 27, 1999, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 prepared by GAV
Associates, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on July 12,
1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face
4-inch brick, no exceptions;
4) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 of Job Number 9803 prepared
by Michael L. Priest &Associates, Inc., dated June 23, 1999, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
6) That underground sprinklers shall be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and that all planted materials shall be installed to the
`�... satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
7) That all site lighting equipment shall be shielded and shall not exceed
20 feet in height;
8) That the three walls of the dumpster enclosure shall be of masonry
construction and the wood enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
9) That handicapped parking spaces of the required size and number shall
be provided on the subject site; and
10) That all parking spaces shall be double striped.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed is in compliance 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 proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area; and
17006
3) That the proposed use is in accord with the spirit and purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance and is not inconsistent with or contrary to the
Now objectives sought to be accomplished and the principles of sound
planning.
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. Shane: Before I go on is this plan going to be part of the record that because of the
brick that he indicated was going to be on the drive-thru?
*Mr. McCann:That's what my question to him was to him. He said the plans show that the
drive-thru is going to be brick.
*Mr.D'Orazio:I will give you a complete set of plans.
*Mr. Shane: We can adjust this date accordingly.
*Mr. McCann:Sure. We can add that to part of the resolution as to what the date shall be.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Shane, I would like to add a little friendly amendment either to number
Now. 6 or to number 5 that irrigation to be supplied to all the plantings .
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-2-21 by GMRI,
Inc., on behalf of Darden Restaurants, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
utilize a Class C license in connection with a restaurant (Bahama Breeze)
proposed to be located on the East side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile
and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:Yes, there are two items of correspondence. The first one is to Scott Miller,
dated June 23, 1999, from James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal and reads as
follows: This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to locate a restaurant on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven
Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6. We have no
objections to this proposal. However, our approval is contingent on the
following: (1) If subject building is to be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from
the Fire Department connection. (2) Access around buildings shall be
provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall
17007
to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet." The second item is
dated June 25, 1999, and is from David Woodcox of the Inspection
%taw Department and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 16, 1999,
the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
As there are two other Class C Liquor establishments within 1,000 feet of the
Petitioner, City Council will have to waive the 1,000 foot rule. (2) Subject
property is in a control zone. We have no objection to this petition, except as
noted above." Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here:
Trudy Boston, GMRI5900 Lake Elenore Drive, Orlando, Florida.
Mr. McCann: We are very familiar with your project. This is just a standard Class C liquor
license so you can serve alcohol and beer and wine, correct?
Ms. Boston: Correct.
Mr. McCann: Anything additional?
Ms. Boston: Yes. We are under contract to purchase a license from the former China King
Restaurant in Belleview, Wayne County, subject to all approvals, municipality
approval, state approvals. We will move into the site via the restaurant.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Hale: Are there any other liquor licenses available in the city at all? With the recent
closing of Moy's, I'm not sure if there are any in escrow whatsoever. Have you
checked that out at all?
Ms. Boston: Yes I did, about two months ago and there were I think there were two in
escrow at that time with the city, however, I believe one of the licenses were
part of the real estate and the other one was under contract at that time.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions. Hearing none, I will go to the audience. Is
there anyone in audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing
no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved it was
#7-127-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on July 13, 1999, Petition 99-6-2-21 by GMRI, Inc., on
behalf of Darden Restaurants, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a
Class C License in connection with a restaurant (Bahama Breeze) proposed to
be located on the East side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile and Eight
Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6,the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-6-2-21 be approved
17008
subject to the waiving of the 1,000 foot separation requirement as set forth in
Section 11.,03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council 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;
and
3) That the proposed use is a normal part of the operation of the proposed
restaurant to be constructed on the subject site.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for
Pine Cove Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Five
Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 24.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:There are four items of correspondence, the first item is dated June 22, 1999,
from the Department of Parks and Recreation which reads as follows: "I have
reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed Pine Cove Estates subdivision
and at this time, I find no discrepancies or problems in this plan as submitted."
The letter is signed by Ronald R. Reinke, Superintendent. The second item is a
letter dated June 24, 1999, from the Department of Public Safety which reads
as follows: "This office has reviewed the Preliminary Plat of Pine Cove
Estates Subdivision. We have no objections to this proposal. However, our
approval is contingent on adequate hydrants being provided and located with
spacing consistent with residential areas. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1500
GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third item of correspondence is a letter dated
June 30, 1999, from the Engineering Division which reads as follows: "Please
be advised the Engineering Division has no objections to the Pine Cove Estates
Subdivision proposal at this time. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any
questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer.
�`' Thank you..
17009
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
'..•- William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia along with Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke,
Livonia. The evening is late and you have had a long evening. I think the
preliminary plat has been tweaked and you now have in front of your a
document showing 20 lots, all of them a minimum of 70'wide and a minimum
of 120' deep that shows the envelope of each specific house. We have the two
eyebrows or cul-de-sacs, or whatever you call them. Other than that I am open
for any questions that you may have.
Mr. Piercecchi: I went over and looked at your property on more that one occasion. and the
only thing that concerns me about it is that if you followed a 30' set back for a
R-2 that is back from the sidewalk, Lots 1 and 19 are going to be setting awful
awful close to Five Mile Road . In as much as the side lots do abut Five Mile
Road, as you know there has to be a 30 foot easement through that area that is
parallel to Five Mile Road. I would be much more comfortable with this
layout if I could be assured if Lots 1, 19 and 20 were at least set back at least
60 feet from the sidewalk, is that possible?
Mr. Roskelly: No sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: Can't do that?
Mr. Roskelly: No sir.
Ni..
Mr. Piercecchi: Why?
Mr. Roskelly: Simply because of the configuration. As you will notice, we put them in with a
shoe horn right now. The lots as you see are 100 feet wide. The other lots are
70 feet so that gives us that 30 foot buffer. Now presently if we take the 100
feet minus the 30 feet, that's 70 feet,the other side yard would have to be, I
believe 7 feet. Number 1 we cannot have a driveway off of Five Mile by
putting the garage facing Five Mile. The only thing that the county would
permit us, the driveway on Lot 1 and 19 have to come off of this new street
that we are creating.
Mr. Piercecchi: The driveway, to satisfy lots 1 and 19 are coming off of Pinebrook, isn't that
correct?
Mr. Roskelly: Off of the new street.
Mr. Piercecchi: Right.
Mr. Roskelly: Yes, I can agree that we can come back into the 30 feet, I don't know if it could
be 60 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't mean the 30 feet,that is an easement, you can't go into that. I am
N` talking about taking away some of the depths of the side lots which are
currently 100 feet, everyone else is 70 feet. but those they happen to be 70 feet.
17010
I can't understand why you can't give up some of that 100 foot width and set
those homes back.
Mr. Roskelly: We can.
Mr. Piercecchi: Can you go back about 60 feet?
Mr. Roskelly: No, not 60 feet but I would say that we could go back 20 feet. Leo, do you
agree with that?
Mr. Soave: Yes.
Mr. Roseklly: 20 feet or 25 feet depending on the home that is built. We can go back further,
yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: I could live with that. I am concerned, that a 30 foot set back is all you need
for a R-2 setback. I am totally aware of that.
Mr. Roskelly: And that is what we illustrated. But also with the lots we are showing it as
100 feet that means that we have 25 feet of flexibility that we can pull it back..
Mr. Piercecchi: At least 20 feet, we can be assured of that, would be the set back?
Mr. Roskelly: 20 feet would be the setback off of Five Mile for lots 1, 19 and 20 because that
`, is 160 feet deep.
Mr. Piercecchi: Now you can go way back.
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you very much.
Mr. Alanskas: On your first plan, you didn't have any islands in cul-de-sacs. Now you do.
Why did you put those in there?
Mr. Roskelly: For two reasons. What happens is on the first cul-de-sac it was a smaller
radius, I believe. Here we have 160 foot radius which is 120 feet wide. That is
an awful lot of concrete. In fact this island in the center would give us
plantings and it would give us a smaller area.
Mr. Alanskas: Who is going to maintain those?
Mr. Roskelly: They would be maintained I presume by the association.
Mr. Alanskas: If you look at the entire city, where we have these islands, they are not
maintained.
Mr. Roskelly: They could be eliminated, if you so desire.
17011
Mr. Alanskas: They are full of weeds.
�.. Mr. Roskelly: I understand.
Mr. Alanskas: I just wonder if it wouldn't be better if we didn't have those period. We'd have
more room for a turning radius without those islands.
Mr. Roskelly: We have adequate turning radius with 60 feet, in fact we could get by with 50
or even 40. We are showing 60 so we have a full pavement in there.
Mr. LaPine: I understand what Mr. Piercecchi is getting at but I am a little bit confused
about something. That lot is 100 foot wide, so the 100 feet does not include the
easement?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes, it does.
Mr. LaPine: If it includes the 100 foot easement and you set the house back and I assume
the dotted line is where the house is going to go...
Mr. Roskelly: The dotted line is the 30 foot line, right now.
Mr. LaPine: So if you go back another 20 feet, that leaves you 70 feet? Right?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: Assuming the house is about 40 - 50 feet wide.
Mr. Roskelly: The side yard have to be, I believe, a minimum of seven feet, six feet.
It is six feet. So we can still build a 50 foot house there.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank.
Mr. McCann: Any questions? I have one, regarding Lots 17, 9, 5,those are the ends of the
cul-de-sac. Are they going to take access off of the cul-de-sac, not the main
road?
Mr. Roskelly: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am
going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. LaPine: Can I ask one more question? Are these going to be all brick homes?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Are they going to be colonial and ranches?
Mr. Roskelly: When you say all brick, Leo on the two story, will they be all brick or brick on
the first story?
17012
Mr. Soave: Brick on the first floor.
Noisy
Mr. Roskelly: First floor brick.
Mr. LaPine: Then how much brick will you have on the ranch?
Mr. Roskelly: Full, with the exception of the peaks.
Mr. Shane: One more question. It doesn't have anything to do with the subdivision other
than the fact that there could be an extension. Have you pursued at all the
property to the south?
Mr. Roskelly: Very diligently.
Mr. Shane: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was
#7-128-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on July 13, 1999, on Preliminary Plat approval for Pine
Cove Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Five Mile
N,` Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that the Preliminary Plat for Pine Cove Estates Subdivision approve the
revised plat received by the Planning Commission on July 9, 1999, subject to
the waiving of the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules&
Regulations and to the following additional conditions:
1) That a landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval prior to final plat approval which shall provide for
landscaping for the proposed 30 foot wide greenbelt easements along
the north property lines of Lots 1 and 19, as well as for the cul-de-sac
areas; and
2) That a plan for the required entrance marker shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval prior to approval of the final plat.
For the following reasons:
1) That the preliminary plat is drawn in compliance with all applicable
standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance#543;
and
2) That the preliminary plat represents a reasonable and well designed
`''� land use solution to development of the subject land.
17013
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of
v,.. Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the
Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police
Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings and therefore there
will only be limited discussion tonight and participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commission.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-4-2-13 by Phoenix
Land Development Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a
planned residential development on property located on the east side of
Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine an unanimously approved it was
#7-129-99 RESOLVED that Petition 99-4-2-13 by Phoenix Land Development requesting
waiver use approval to construct a planned residential development on property
located on the east side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann:Mr. Taormina, is there any new correspondence at this time?
Mr. Taormina: Our file indicates that there have been no new items of correspondence since
the last hearing..
Mr. McCann:Is the petitioner here this evening?
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia.
Mr. McCann:New client?
Mr. Roskelly:It has been my client and I wasn't aware that it was on tonight, so fortunately, I
am here tonight and representing Phoenix Land.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Roskelly, at our study meeting two weeks ago on a Tuesday Mr. Schafer
said on a Thursday, that he was going to meet in regards to the wetlands and
have a report for us. Do you know what happened at that meeting?
Mr. Roskelly: I'll indicate my conversation and that is that the DEQ insists that a portion of
this wetland be retained.
17014
Mr. Alanskas: Did they say how much?
Mr. Roskelly:I believe about three acres. I think our drawing illustrated what that represents,
I believe what the DEQ agreed to.
Mr. McCann:Are there any more questions?
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think tabling is going to be the way to go. Mr.
Schafer said if he had to keep some of those wetlands, he had to re-do his plans
so I don't see any reason for really hearing anything until we hear what he is
going to do what the new plans are going to be because if he had to keep some
of the wetlands that was going to change his plan
Mr. Roskelly:I presume that may be one of the reasons he is not here tonight. I just thought I
would stand and indicate that I was representing him tonight but I certainly
agree, through the chair to Mr. LaPine, that this should in fact be tabled until
such time that we get official word as to how many acres are involved. I do not
want to be the messenger to you to say it is three or three and a half acres.
Mr. McCann: On behalf of the petitioner you are requesting that we put this back on the table
until we hear from him?
Mr. Alanskas: Are we going to select a date?
Mr. McCann:Until the petitioner requests that it be brought back.
Mr. Hale: Tabled indefinitely?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved it was
#7-130-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on July 13, 1999, on Petition 99-4-2-13 by Phoenix Land
Development Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a
planned residential development on property located on the east side of
Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27
be tabled to a date uncertain.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-8-19 by
Montgomery Ward requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47
of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to refurbish the exterior
of the store located at 29501 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
17015
#7-131-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-6-8-19 by Montgomery Ward requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
v.. connection with a proposal to refurbish the exterior of the store located at 29501
Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Is there any new information, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina As far as relative to the change of the plans, I believe the petitioner is here to
present back to you some of the revisions of the plan in response to the
concerns that were expressed at the June 27, 1999 study session.
Mr. McCann:Is the petitioner here this evening?
Norm Abplanalp, Corporate Office at 535 Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Ill. Mr. Chairman, at
our last meeting I would like to recap what I think were our discussions and
agreements. I propose the existing building which exists of masonry and various
canopy elements, that we would remove those canopy elements on the north
side of the building. We would power wash the entire building, we would paint
the black trim that exists out there today to match the brick. Not paint the brick
but paint the trim to match trick. We would construct along the north side of
the building a new facade consisting of two entrance monuments and a curt wall
section. The curt wall section is grounded by a planting area. You requested
that that area be landscaped and to call out the landscape species. I believe the
drawings call for that. The proposal also contains a new sign package. naming
the building Wards instead of Montgomery Ward. We have agreed to paint the
auto center. That evening that we met, Mrs. Koons picked out, and we agreed
to paint the middle color, #966. Since that time, I would also propose that the
garage doors not be that color but to use the darker color, a little bit more
serviceable. It will also blend very nicely with the brick. We agreed to flurry
coat the parking lot and re-stripe it and paint the light standards in our area,
white.
Mr. Alanskas: I think we are finally getting down to brass tacks, but I have a question . At
our study meeting, you made a remark that went by us real quick. You are
possibly going to be renting out a large portion of the rear of the store?
Mr. Abplanalp: The side along the south side, along the Middlebelt Road side. We are
working Shostak on that.
Mr.Alanskas: How many square feet is that?
Mr. Alplanalp: I am guessing, it is about 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Alanskas: All right Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions?
17016
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, I approve of everybody trying to update their building sites and things of
that nature, however, in order to get that mall perking again, if aesthetics will do
`., it, I think you are really doing the minimum on the building but you are doing
nothing in the parking lot. Have you considered putting in some landscape
areas with trees and making the aesthetics of that parking lot attractive that
maybe will pull some cars in off of Plymouth Road rather than just a meager
three or four shrubs in front of the building?
Mr. Abplanalp: The proposal you have in front of you is just a landscape area under that bode
wall ...
Mr. Piercecchi: That is up by the building.
Mr. Abplanalp: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm talking out in the parking lot., make some islands. Make it attractive. It
has been over 40 years and I don't think that Ward has done a darn thing to that
building in 40 years or that parking lot.
Mr. Abplanalp: We are working with the Plymouth Road Commission and we will
incorporate some of those plantings periodically into our parking area.
Mr. Piercecchi: But those will only go to the outside.
Mr. Abplanalp: I know what you are saying. I am agreeing that we will put some planting
areas in the parking lot.
Mr. Piercecchi: You will build some islands and things of that nature in there?
Mr. Abplanalp: Yes. We have to be careful of the parking ratio but I think we have enough
room.
Mr. Piercecchi: You have plenty of parking there. But that to me adds a lot of attractiveness
there with trees and shrubs and that will bring people in, not just a little bit of
dryvit on the building..
Mr. McCann: To the staff, can we bring approve everything else and bring it back for a
greenbelt plan?
Mr. Taormina: I don't see why not. As I understand it, we are looking for a revision to the
landscape that will affect the parking lot and we can work with the petitioner for
that plan.
Mr. Abplanalp: We will be glad to work with the staff.
Mr. McCann:Are there any other questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
`o, Mr. Piercecchi: Will that be mentioned in the motion, Mr. Chairman?
17017
Mr. McCann: I think you should do that, or whoever makes the motion.
Mr. Piercecchi: I will be happy to make an approving motion but with the inclusion that
there will be extensive landscaping and islands added to add attractiveness in
that area
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#7-132-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-6-8-19 by Montgomery Ward requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to refurbish the exterior of the store located at 29501
Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A5.1 prepared
by Chipman Adams, LTD., as received by the Planning Commission on
July 9, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A5.2 prepared
by Chipman Adams, LTD., as received by the Planning Commission on
July 9, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the area of the parking lot Montgomery Ward is responsible for
`40ki.r shall be repaired, resealed and restriped;
4) That the replacement wall signs, as shown on the approved plans, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to and shall not exceed the
square footage of the existing signage; and
5) That a fully detailed Landscape Plan, for the entire Montgomery Ward
parking lot, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council for their review and approval within six(6) months of this
approval.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is one area here, No. 3, Mark, where we talk about the parking lot
shall be repaired, resealed and restriped. How do we put the language that
states that there will be extensive landscaping in that area?
Mr. Taormina: Maybe the parking lot plan you would want to see presented all at once, so
if you want to include those other items with a future proposal that would
come back to the Commission for the review. Otherwise I would suggest
that you would add an additional condition that would provide for the
petitioner to resubmit a landscape plan for the parking lot.
Mr. Piercecchi: That's fine. Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann: We'll add a landscape plan for the parking lot so it will be brought back
before us.
17018
Mrs. Koons : That I'll support.
Mr. McCann: Any discussion? Good luck.
Mrs.. Koons: I would like to thank you for your diligence with a plan that will hopefully
revitalize Ward for the future for Livonia.
Mr. Abplanalp: Thank you for your support.
Mr. McCann: I think you let the best person on the Commission chose your colors.
Mr. Abplanalp: Thank you.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 788th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on July 13, 1999 was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
'tow �, , Michael Hale, Secretary
ATTEST✓' �` �— 7(L 4v
/ J. es C. McCann, Chairman
/rw '