HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-05-05 16031
MINUTES OF THE 763rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 5, 1998, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 763rd
Regular Meeting and Public Hearings 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 Daniel Piercecchi Robert Alanskas
*Michael Hale William LaPine
Members absent: Elaine Koons
* Arrived 7:36 p.m.
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II,
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 and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request
and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public
hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions
become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has
reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and
denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome
of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 98-3-1-3 by
by Charles Tangora representing DR Group, LL., requesting to rezone property
located south of the CSX Railroad, west of Stark Road, in the S.W. 1/4 of Section
28 from R-5 (One Family Residential - 100' X 150' Lot) to M-1 (Light
Manufacturing).
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department, dated March 24, 1998 stating
a...
they have reviewed the subject petition and they have no objections to the proposed
16032
zoning changes. The legal description contained in the petition should be used in
connection therewith. The letter is signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer.
There is a letter dated May 5, 1998 addressed to the Commissioners stating "Please
be advised that I am opposed to the industrial rezoning requested by this petition.
This will result in (1) the destruction of the woods; (2) unwanted traffic in the
subdivision to the south; (3) noise and disruption in the neighborhood. Thank you
for considering my concerns. It is signed by Eric Amato, 11981 Boston Post,
Livonia.
That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, would the petitioner come
forward and state your name and address.
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile, Livonia. I represent DR Group, Dembs Roth, who have been
developing in the Livonia area for 30 or closer to 40 years, both residentially and
industrially. I'm sure you have seen their construction in the area. Michael Roth is
a member of the DR Group. I think that the Planning Commission recognizes that
the M-1 and R-5 zoning has been a piece of property that has been a problem piece
of property as far as developing because there wasn't really any access into the
area. It was in an estate where for a number of years attempts were made to
purchase it and never came to fruition until Mr. Roth worked out an arrangement to
purchase both the M-1 and R-5 property that goes up to the railroad tracks and
seeks about a 36' extension of the M-1 to accommodate some parking for the
industrial development that he would like to put in there. The building that would
be placed on the present M-1 would face south and the parking in front of
that building would be for a multi-tenant building. The truck traffic that would
enter the development from Stark Road, not through the neighborhood, would go to
the rear toward the railroad tracks. Any truck wells in the building, the trucks
would go to that area to unload. The front of the building and the vehicular and
passenger parking would be to the south and there would be a wall between the
industrial and the R-5 that the DR Group would like to purchase and the R-5
classification would be a buffer. As I indicated, the access to this M-1 development
would be off of Stark Road. It goes through several pieces of property which are
not owned by the petitioner but he has made contacts with those people and has
entered into arrangements with those property owners to the east of this M-1 which
happens to be Service Steel which fronts on Stark Road, so there is another piece of
property that is owned by Mr. Risotti. Both of these people he has contacted are
willing to sell or lease or give an easement across their property. There is also
a piece of City property that was kept by the City just for this particular purpose so
that access would be available off of Stark Road into this property. At one time it
was proposed to have a ring road from Stark Road across this M-1 property to
Belden Court and then down. Of course, this never came about. Again, the access
would strictly be off of Stark Road. Mr.Roth did meet with the people from Alden
16033
Village Subdivision about 3 or 4 weeks ago. I'm not sure exactly of the time but
indicated what he wanted to do and promised the people that there would be no
construction vehicles going through the subdivision that they would be going in off
of Stark Road. After the project was complete there would be no entrance into
Alden Village. Also on the R-5, which is residential, as that is being developed as
the construction vehicles under his control would also use the M-1 property just to
develop the R-5. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. LaPine: Could you show us where the road would come in?
Mr. Miller: Here you have Stark and here is the City owned piece of property which would run
along the residential about 738 feet to the start of this property.
Mr. LaPine: That parcel is owned by the City and if it was developed by the City it would only
service this one parcel?
Mr. Miller: Yes, because it's only 60' wide.
Mr. LaPine: If it is developed as he wants OK. Mr. Tangora the proximity to the warehouse is
really close to these homes there. When you say you have 112 oversized trucks,
are you talking about tractors and trailers? Trucks that would be used for light
industrial usage?
Mr. Tangora: Let me just say I'm not sure what type of trucks there might be, possibly semi
trucks. What the building is intended to be is a multi-tenant building because that
is the way the property is zoned. Could be storage. Being that light industrial
would attract the type of truck business that is typical for the light industrial
user.
Mr. LaPine: The notes that I have says this is a multi tenant warehousing distribution factory.
Now I have to say I believe, to me, this is a warehousing. This has a spur where
freight cars can load and unload at this location?
Mr. Tangora: Mr. Roth says no.
Mr. LaPine: So there won't be any railroad cars loading and unloading at this location? But you
abut the railroad tracks, is that right?
Mr. Roth: Yes
Mr. LaPine: Next question I have. Off the end of that the road there you have the sign
advertising the rezoning. There is a house there. Is that part of this project?
Mr. Tangora: No.
16034
Mr. LaPine: If you didn't have to have the rezoning of this 36.85' could you develop this
land or is it essential that you have this 36.85'?
Mr. Tangora: The property could be developed. This is a much better development with the
passenger cars parking up in front.
Michael Roth, 27300 W. Eleven Mile Southfield, Michigan. I am one of the petitioners. Yes, we
could still develop the property however we would reverse the building. We would
put the truck parking facing the residential area and we would have the office
facing the other way because the site is narrow and long and I would like to make
the thing what I believe is the best advantage for residential, industrial and City use,
If there is noise, this would make the best way the building could be built. If there
was noise coming from the building it would be more directed toward the north. It
could be developed the other way. The intent that we discussed with the Planning
Department Mr. Nagy, etc. Everybody came to the conclusion that this was the
proper thing to apply for. If we can't develop it the other way, we will meet all of
the City's codes.
Mr. LaPine: The 60' that the City owns , you will need approximately 500 additional feet for
a road. Will that be bought off the residents in the area?
Mr. Roth: No. There is a company, Service Steel located off of Glendale who owns the two
industrial buildings that are closest to the railroad tracks and all of the
property if I can show you on the map ... The Property owners at the corner are
going to give me an easement and I have petitioned the City to work out an
arrangement with them .
Mr. LaPine: That's all I have at this time.
Mr. Piercecchi: I understand that all the of the arrangements have been more or less concluded on
getting to this property?
Mr. Tangora: All three property owners have been contacted including the City of Livonia.
Easements are being prepared and the purchase of one of these pieces of property, I
believe, Service Steel, Mr. Rizotti's, is in the mill.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is not really finalized but it's in the mill?
Mr. Tangora: Yes
Mr. Piercecchi: What basis was used to determine the number of spaces for car and truck
parking?
16035
Mr. Tangora: The size of the building and it is dictated by the number of employees and
customers that would be utilizing the facility and I think using that design so that it
is built toward code.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is going to be subdivided into so many units.
Mr. Roth: We anticipate four potential users. We are building other buildings similar to
this in other communities. The primary use that we are shooting for is
warehousing. This is the typical new type of warehousing.
Mr. Piercecchi: Why is there a differential between the truckwell and truck parking distance on
the south side which 135' and on east and west is 120'? What really is the distance
that is required in that trucking zone?
Mr. Roth: What's happening in the trucking industry is that they are going to longer and
bigger trucks all the time. We used 110' and 120' in the truckwell and the
turning area that was necessary for a truck to pull in there. Today we believe it is
130' and 135' as a dimension between a truckwell and a turning area that was
necessary for a truck to pull in there. In our layout of the building, we set up the
sides of the building just in case we had a trucker that had an exorbitant amount
where that way we could do it but potentially it would be tight. We believe the
130'- 135' is the dimension necessary that we need to make this thing work.
Mr. Piercecchi: Have you considered angle parking which would give you more parking which
would give you another 5' to 10'?
Mr. Roth: We believe when it is all said and done that we have laid it out to what we believe
would be a good use, a good fit between the industrial and the residential.
Mr. Piercecchi: You're missing my point. Have you considered angle parking which would give
you more parking space at the end.
Mr. Roth: A truck is approximately 60 to 65 feet long and when a truck pulls in there he
needs what I call a wall or a fence, and the drives are one way. If you were to turn
the trucks on an angle, you could possibly pick up a few feet but we don't believe
it's necessary. We feel that our layout is what is best for the community.
Mr. Piercecchi: How essential was it in making this building 191,000? With a little bit of a
change in the truckwell depth and angle parking, I can see where you could get
175,000 without any problem.
Mr.. Roth: It's just a multiple in the cost of doing business today considering how we have to
bring a road 700 feet in, there is a drain running through the property that has to be
relocated. The Building Department, Engineering Department and Planning
Department knows this is a difficult piece, this was brought to us over a year ago
16036
and we have been tip toeing around it. We couldn't figure out what to do with it
because of the cost of the property, etc. When I met with the officers of the Alden
Subdivision I explained to them I felt I was doing something that was not in
anyway hindering them. If anything, I was making a better project for us and that I
was more comfortable in going ahead with that I did not need their permission to
build. They gave me a verbal acceptance of my proposal. We are not a parcel of
their subdivision.
Mr. Piercecchi: I sympathize, you have a land locked piece of property. However, I would like if
all possible, that you make every effort to eliminate the encroachment
into the R-5 zone.
Mr. Roth: I felt, that in the spirit of cooperation in trying to make something good for
everybody, that I came to them with a proposal which they indicated to me
verbally that was an acceptable proposal to the people that I met with. I'm hearing
opposition tonight, I'm wondering where it is coming from because supposedly
they went back to their members of the subdivision. We are not part of their
subdivision. We are a separation parcel. We are not a part of Alden Subdivision.
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm not questioning your right to build on the M-1, I'm hoping we can come up
with some arrangements where there would be no encroachment on the R-5.
Mr. McCann: Any more questions?
Mr. Alanskas: When you had this meeting, how many people were at this meeting?
Mr. Roth: Five or six that were either officers and people that were adjacent to this property.
The adjacent homeowner went back to their subdivision association meeting and
I called them up and they didn't think there would be a problem.
Mr. Alanskas: When you had that meeting, were names taken and were notes taken?
Mr. Roth: They did, I did not. You would have to ask them.
Mr. Alanskas: So someone does have those minutes?
Mr. Roth: I think they do.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the building, you say you want to build 4 buildings for a total of
191,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Roth: No, it's one building but it would be divided into 4 units.
Mr. Alanskas: What would be the height of that building be?
16037
Mr. Roth: Approximately 30'. This is the City's property, here in blue, this is Mr. Rizotti's
property here in Orange and this is Service Iron's property here in yellow.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand that.
Mr. Roth: The intent is to take all of the industrial traffic and running it through here.
Mr. Alanskas: And they turn right and then they would have to go north to the back of the
building.
Mr. Roth: There they go north to the back of the building. If I want, I can push the building
back here and I do the same thing up here, but I put the truck wells here because I
don't have the maneuvering problems.
Mr. Alanskas: That's fine but how many truck wells are we talking about? I'm trying to get a
visions of how much traffic we're talking about.
Mr. Roth: Approximately we'll have about 20 truckwells. It is across the whole South side of
the building. The intent is the current trend more toward warehousing in these
communities. It is not heavy manufacturing. It is light assembly, automobile parts
typical of most buildings, etc.
Mr. Alanskas: Deliveries are made at all hours during the day and evening. That is a lot of traffic
for whatever deliveries you're going to be promoting or selling in that building.
Mr. Roth: I don't think so.
Mr. Alanskas: I'm talking about being intrusive to the neighbors. That size of building, with that
many truckwells, that means you're going to be going a lot of business and a lot of
deliveries. You know, it's a tough situation. I think to myself, how would I like it
if someone were to put a warehouse almost in my backyard where I live.
Mr. Roth: I agree with you and I'm looking at how this was laid out.
Mr. Alanskas: So, it's our job to work with you and the neighbors where we have that
problem.
Mr. Roth: Correct and I'm with you 100%.
Mr. Alanskas: The R-5 parcel, how big is that area?
Mr. Roth: Approximately 36' X 1,280', a little over 40,000 sq. Ft.
Mr. Alanskas: It would make a nice park there, wouldn't it? Could you make the building smaller
and less truckwells?
16038
Mr. Roth: Again, if you look at the building and you look at the parcel of property, it's a very
narrow building that we're building and a very long narrow piece of property. To
make anything work out that is comfortable for us, what we believe is something
we can market, we still have to market it, it's not for a specific use. If we take the
truckwells, and I put them on this side of the property, which I meet the code, I
meet the intent of the ordinances and everything else, it does not give them any
buffer whatsoever.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, you've answered my questions.
Mr. Hale: I am unclear as to the extent of the buffer. Is there in fact going to be a cement
wall?
Mr. Roth: Whatever the code requires to separate residential from industrial, we will do. We
also had a little more of what is called a greenbelt area along here so it make it look
nicer for the residents.
Mr,. Hale: As it stands now, you don't have any particular height in mind when it comes to the
cement wall?
Mr. Roth: I think the wall is typically 6' - 5'?
Mr. Nagy: No less than 5' no more than 7'
Mr. Roth: I will meet the code.
Mr. LaPine: The City owned property 60' X 243', are you buying that property from the City?
Mr. Roth: We have petitioned the City to request access and however the City Attorney and
City Council - I'm looking at John because I'm not sure of the terminology.
Mr. Nagy: To answer your question, Mr. LaPine the company has been to the City Council,
they have not yet acted on it.
Mr. LaPine: If we're building the road for one development, I think they should develop the
road and it shouldn't be an expense of the City. That's my opinion. Even if you're
not given the 36.85' that you want, and if you reversed the building you would still
have to put up the masonry wall because it abuts residential property. My main
concern is, where the road is going the road is so close the residential, if you moved
that road to the other end, or if there was some way you could do it, that would
alleviate a lot of problems for me and probably a lot of problems with the residents
because we all know that even if we deny you that 36.85', you could still build
there just by reversing the building.
16039
Mr. Roth: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: That's a fact of life. So the people out in the audience have to understand that. But
the other thing that worries me is that many truck wells and that many trucks, I
have to believe there will be trucks coming and going 24 hours a day and that close
to a residential area, I think is wrong. The solution, and I realize if
the City goes along with your thinking and allows you to put in the road and we
deny the rezoning and you shift the building, there still going to have that problem.
Have you tried to purchase any property anywhere along there that could move the
road. Any way that could be done?
Mr. Roth: No, because all three of these are already built on. When coming to the City when
it was presented to us and everybody would like this developed and the City's
intent was that this was where the road was going to come in and prevails to this,
the road was going to be into Belden Court.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you, I have no further questions.
Mr. McCann: The property to the south that is zoned R-5, is that also in this trust?
Mr. Roth: Yes, we own that and we will be developing that into residential, and being we're
the ones that will be backing up to our own building and we're the ones having to
take that risk of whether that's going to be successful, we're not foolish enough to
believe that we're going to put up something that will create a traffic nightmare.
Now.
Mr. McCann: How many square feet less, what would be the cost to you to build the building in
the same direction without the 36'? How many square feet?
Mr. Roth: The building we are proposing is only 230 ft deep. So it would be 30' times
approximately 830' is 25,000' less. You're to make the dollars make sense
for what we're doing and we are trying to make sure we're maximizing the cost,
because remember this isn't going to be free coming across here. We're taking the
Ryder drain all across here re-routing it all the way down to here. There is a lot of
expense for this particular piece of property. That's why it was never developed
before. This was always zoned M-1 with the intent, I think of rezoning this whole
section here at one time. Believe me, I'm not trying to oppose anyone here in the
audience. Believe me, I'm not trying to do something that would be bad for the
residents. As much as I think they would like to see it stay a woods, I think the
intent is, I think, that every person has the right to try and develop their property.
Mr. McCann: Someone has been paying property taxes on this property, it is zoned M-1. He can
go in and develop it. What we want to do is make sure this is the best possible
development for the City and the neighbors in the area. Understand some
development is going to come in there. If you would like to speak to this issue,
16040
come forward and state your name and address and try not to be repetitive. Thank
you. Are there any more questions?
Paul Dorcher, 34934 Beacon. Mr. Roth did meet with us and discussed it with us and members of
the association and as he presented it, we are not opposed to it. It seems to be a
hard piece to work with but he seems to have an idea that will take off He did
originally come to us and ask for 30' but now has crept up to 36.85'.
Mr. McCann: John, do you know why?
Mr. Nagy: There was an error in the first legal description and when we evaluated the request
and discovered the error, we worked it out .
Mr. Dorcher: He assured us at that meeting he wouldn't try to rezone anything other than the 36'
and that he would try and make the residential area as nice as he can. As he
presented it to us, I personally am not opposed to it as it was.
Kathleen Fleming, 12124 Boston Post. I, in essence, have a few concerns that I would like to
express about the property that will stay residential - the R-5 property. Let's keep
in mind that this property that he has very nebulously described in developing, we
have heard no specifics, nothing legally binding and I'm just concerned about the
extension that he is proposing. When it is 100' from the railroad tracks, what kind
of value can property possibly have being that closely located to a warehouse and
railroad tracks? What will this do to the value of our properties in the rest of our
"taw village?
Mr. LaPine: Knowing that an M-1 can be developed, If we don't allow the 36.85', he can
switch the building or leave it the way he has proposed it, how would you vote on
having it located?
Ms. Fleming: I think it should be switched so that more natural land is saved for the residents and
for future generations, frankly.
Kristin & Jay Marchione, 12121 Boston Post. We are the home which will be the most affected
by this. We live at the corner in the R-5, it is Llal, I believe. As you see where the
road comes up Boston Post, it goes where there is a split, our property line is right
in the middle and our driveway goes right up and we have a 70' drive. There is an
easement that was made - our house was built in 1939. It has been updated
completely since then. They are going to be continuing the road right through our
driveway and we will have 10' of our driveway and a road directly in front of our
home and yes it is residential but there's going to be 23 homes going up there.
We're the most affected by this. When that road you, you see the angle of our
house, our house is right on the corner of this lot, so the street is going to be
coming right next to it. Anyway we're going to have a 10' driveway. Our house is
here, our driveway comes up here and goes right up to our house. This is going to
16041
continue up right through our driveway and then it's going to split off for him to
make a residential cul-de-sac and the road is going to "T" off and there's going to
be a road there and a road over there.
Mr. McCann: I don't believe we have a preliminary plat. What makes you feel that the road will
go through Boston Post?
Mr. Marchioni: We've already been told that is what the City's supporting .
Mr. McCann: Are you familiar with this John?
Mr. Nagy: No, this is the first I've heard of this.
Mr. McCann: Unfortunately, we have a zoning issue on the 36.8' on tonight.
Mr. Marchoni:The 36' part will come closer to the house than to ...
Mr. McCann: Absolutely.
Ms. Marchoni:And our home is going to come the closest to the wall and the trucking.
Mr. Marchoni:There aren't going to be any trees at all.
Ms. Marchoni:O.K., so if we're talking about M-1, so say we support that, then isn't the R-5 also
s`' suppose to be considered?
Mr. McCann: We don't know where they are taking access from. He could take access from his
own road that he is bringing in off of Stark
Ms. Marchoni:Is that possible? To have it connecting towards the M-1 instead of having it go
through a residential?
Mr. Nagy: Theoretically it is possible. Whether it is desirable or not remains to be seen.
Ms. Marchoni:Well, if you're building a new subdivision surrounding an old subdivision...
Mr. McCann: We can't get into the development of the R-5. Tonight we have to ask Mr.
LaPine's question. Do you want the truck wells facing you and loading facing you
or do you want them facing the other way?
Ms. Marchoni:The M-1, yes, we support the 36.85' that is needed in order that the cars will be on
this side as opposed to the trucks. We would support that. But right now our
biggest concern is our home.
Mr. McCann: They are going to have to come back long before they start developing that.
16042
Ms. Marchoni:O.K., Well, a lot of trucks are coming down to check out that part also and from my
understanding they have to build a sewer line that somehow connects to the R-5
`" and to the M-1 and if they have to develop the R-5 sewer line with the M-1, it will
affect us directly immediately. Isn't that correct?
Mr. McCann: I don't know. Again, this is just a zoning petition and not a site plan. When he
comes back with a site plan those issues will be coming in and whether he has to
develop his road first so that he can have access, those are issues that will be
discussed at that time.
Ms. Marchoni:O.K. Thank you.
Dean Kandt, 11775 Boston Post. Everybody does have a right to develop property that they do
own, the problem is they don't have access ... I feel sorry for the neighbors who do
back up to that. It will not be consistent with the lot size we have now. Also, I
would like to meet the future neighbors that would be in R-5. How will they like
sharing access to Stark Road with the trucks. I know you have a proposal on that
36' X 1,200 property, where are they going to come through? It is going to be
Boston Post. It's going to be kind of tough with that one house sitting where it's at.
I like what the one gentlemen said, that it would be a great park.
Barb Demea 34851 Wadsworth. I think that we share the same concerns, even where the R-5
comes off It is going down Boston Post. In our subdivision the streets are very
narrow, we have no sidewalks for our children. They have to ride their bikes in the
road, supervised, of course, but they have to ride in the road. If they did add the
residential area there, you are talking 44 more cars, because you double it, or more,
and it just doesn't fit with our nice quiet neighborhood. That's why we bought
there.
Kim & Louis Palmer 11866 Boston Post. I think our biggest concern is how they are going to get
to that area and how it is going to impact not just the neighborhood as it is new but
they do develop the R-5, will they then allow some type of access from the
industrial area into the R-5 from the industrial area into the R-5 and out of the R-5
and is that going to create heavier traffic into the subdivision. I think that is
certainly true as far as the proposal which way the building is to set, obviously he's
going to develop that and we obviously don't have a choice in that because he owns
the property. We would certainly prefer to have the offices facing the residential
area to alleviate some of the noise and some of the concerns of the traffic. But I
think the traffic just getting into the M-1 area is the hughest concern of the residents
right now.
Mr. Palmer: That and the fact that the people at the end of Boston Post, it is a lot of traffic for
them and I know the M-1 and the road going in and out of M-1, they are talking
•.r
16043
about quite a few trucks that are going to be going in and out of there, the residents
are going to get beat up on that M-1 on that one section of property.
`"' Ms Demea: On Capitol Road, right behind where their property is, we are always hearing noise
from that kind of traffic. No one can tell me that those residents in those houses on
Capitol aren't going to be able to hear it.
Mr. Palmer: Maybe if they could move the road closer to the tracks.
Ms. Demea: Has the developer thought of any other option of access?
Mr. McCann: We discussed that earlier, there is no other access.
Mr. Nagy: The desire is to separate the residential traffic from the industrial traffic. It's only
good planning principle not promoting the dual usage.
Mr. McCann: You have to have separate the road by weight, or weight bearing and there's a lot of
things that have to be considered.
Mr. Palmer: Another question, is there any possible way on Boston Post they somehow could
slip in a road to come down to Boston Post.
Mr. Nagy: No one just slips in. There is a public hearing and there will be an official review
by the Planning Commission and the City Council before any permits are issued.
`'" Nothing just slips in.
Mr. Palmer: So M-1 would be totally separate?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Raymond Gilreath, 12034 Boston Post: I am concerned about the noise. We have 30' trees or
better filtering the noise and a 5' wall isn't going to filter anything and the R-5
traffic my concern. We've got traffic cutting through to avoid the light at Stark
right now. That's my concern right now.
Mr. McCann: Are you opposed to the change in zoning?
Mr. Gilreath: Yes, I am. I don't agree with it at all.
Guy Chopp, 12017 Brewster. We're talking about 35' doesn't sound like much but to Alden
subdivision it means a lot. Alden Subdivision is the second oldest subdivision in
the City. We are surrounded by industrial from Schoolcraft to Plymouth and Levan
to Middlebelt and it is making it a little tighter on us and closing in on us. We
understand he can still build there, it means he could down size which
would benefit the neighborhood. What I'm hearing is all these trucks. We have
16044
trucks now coming through our subdivision because they missed their turn or for
whatever reason. I'm constantly giving directions to these truck drivers. I'm
opposed to this.
Greg Chopp, 11901 Brewster. I am opposed to the M-1 rezoning. I think you can explore other
options maybe accessing from the other side of the railroad tracks. Maybe 36'
doesn't sound like a lot but it is 36' away from our subdivision. I oppose it.
Bryum McBride, 12034 Brewster. I am opposed to the M-1 zoning. It is too much traffic. I don't
know who would want to buy a house next to a warehouse/factory and a railroad
tracks
Sherry Lemon, 12101 Brewster. The property that he wants to rezone is right behind our house. I
am concerned how he is going to build this wall. The wall is going to come out
straight and curve around? Right now we have a lot of noise that comes from
whatever buildings we have back there and when I open a window all I hear is truck
noise now. I can't imagine any other truck going in there but once this is all said
and done, he may change his mind and I don't think it is a good idea to give him
extra footage. It would hurt my property.
Jean Pyle, 12070 Boston Post. My concern is if he can build there, and the only option is for us to
have the offices on our side, then I agree with the rezoning, but has there been a
plan presented to show exactly how the building is going to be and be assured that
the parking is going to be there. I've heard that if we did this, we could do that.
But I haven't see a site plan with a building on it saying if we give this 36' then
we'll put the offices on your side. If we don't get that, then we're going to give
you the trucks.
Mr. McCann: The site plan that has been shown on television is over there, although, he is not
bound by that. He would still have to come back to the appropriate city offices to
get that approved. So the same people you see on the Planning Commission and
the same people you see at City Council are the ones he will have to come back to.
Ms. Pyle: So the rezoning -then we could be assured by the council that the offices will be on
the residential side?
Mr. McCann: That's correct.
Ms. Pyle: Then I would have to agree with that to have the offices on our side instead of the
trucks because of the noise. I have to agree and I don't see where a 5' buffer is
going to make a difference to us. It's going to decrease our property value. A park
would increase the value of our property.
16045
Kathleen Fleming, 12124 Boston Post. Actually the concerns I'm bring up might affect the City
more so that the residents. What I want to ask about is, with this access to the M-1
property off of Stark Road, let's think about this, we are bringing in large trucks
and think about the proximity of this driveway to the railroad tracks and the
periodic slow down in traffic we have already. It might be a concern for a civil
engineer, what kind of repercussion this might have on the traffic pattern on Stark
Road.
Mr. McCann: I think that is a valid concern.
Keith Baker, 34990 Wadsworth. I'm in favor if indeed they are going to build the property that
the variable speed used because I live off of Belden Court and believe me when
they have the doors facing our property, you hear everything going on in there.
That would be an advantage for those people. My major concern is the way they
are going to traffic onto Stark Road. It is really very hard, at times,just to get out
there unless they are going to put some kind of traffic device or something like that
or is there an option to going out to Belden Court? Are there any answers back to
these?
Mr. Nagy: Belden Court has been built out. There's no room for a right-of-way.
Edward Butler, 34938 Wadsworth. I disagree with that about what you said about Belden Court.
There is a vacant lot right down there by the cul-de-sac. I walk down there all the
time and it seems it would alleviate a lot of problems. Stark Road is the only road
`"'" in Livonia that is residential/industrial. That is 40 miles an hour. Now you're
going to run semi's down there. The lady just before me brought up the proximity
of the railroad tracks. I can see a potential problem. I work for the City and I know
the problems that exist there. There must be another way. If they came off of
Belden Court and if they come off of Plymouth Road, it takes a lot of pressure off
of Stark Road. It is the only 40 mile an hour residential street in Livonia and the
only industrial one in Livonia. That is the problem I have. I don't have any
problem with the easement there. I don't have to live with it. I live on Wadsworth
and my problem is that I think they can come off of Belden Court and I think
some kind of arrangement can be met.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, would you show me that lot on this...
Mr. McCann: Dan, you can see on the screen the four buildings already existing to the west.
Mr. Butler: It is right here - lot number 19.
Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. sir, thank you.
16046
Raymond Barnes, 34851 Beacon. My concern is the amount of children that are there and the
amount of traffic. So there's going to be a lot of accidents. I am really concerned
about the kids. There's a lot of them in there.
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you sir.
Kristen Kandt, 11775 Boston Post. I have lived in Livonia for 30 years. My husband and I have
lived there many years. Livonia is a good place to raise a family. We do have a lot
of children in the neighborhood. We do have a lot of traffic that goes through the
neighborhood. My feeling is that the light at Stark and Plymouth is a mess as far as
I am concerned. These people are trying to cut through the neighborhood there.
They come through off of Brewster and my concern is that one of these days one of
these kids will be killed. They ride their bikes in the road because there are no
sidewalks. With all of this change going on it makes me and my husband feel
insecure. Maybe insecure about staying in this neighborhood. I never thought I
was going to be in the neighborhood this long. I love the neighborhood and it
makes me feel great that we could raise a family there and staying there. Thank
you.
Gordon Vanzo, 12066 Boston Post Road. Some of you may have remembered my father, Joseph
Vanzo. We have, as you have heard, every imaginable argument against all of this
development, not merely M-1, not merely the easement and not merely R-5. It is
the whole thing. We don't want anything back there. What we would really like
you people on the Planning Commission to do is to rezone this nature park. This is
the only area that does not have any kind of a park attached or associated . Go
ahead City Council - come on, let's face it, we have money coming out of our ears
The City can pay Mr. Roth market value for the land, you laugh if you want but
this is the option that we want. We had a meeting the other day where there were
about five people present. We've got about 3/5 this of the village here right now. I
think you've just heard what we want. I have been in construction for about 30
years. I've been a construction engineer and right now I'm an estimator and I
understand what's going up here tonight. I can understand how you can
disassociate those things, our life, Boston Post Road but it's our life. It's
neighborhood. I've lived in that house for 56 years. This is my life. Are we going
to have all of R-5 traffic coming down Boston Post Road. If so, there are 23
houses, that's going to be what 45 or 50 cars, each car goes to work and back and
goes to the store and back is going to be 200 trips per day, not counting everybody
that's going to come and visit those people and weekends. You've heard the lady
before me talk about how many kids we've got in the neighborhood now there are
little kids all over the place. It is a wonderful place. What is going to happen when
M-1 comes and then especially R-5. You can disassociate those things, we can
not and that's what we are talking about tonight.. We want this land to be a park .
We want a nature park, plain and simple. There is nothing cast in stone that says
M-1 has to have anything on it at all. The laws and rules are made by men.
Somewhere along the line M-1 was decided M-1. 150 years ago, it was nothing.
16047
We don't want M-1, we don't want R-5. We want just like it is and that is what we
think you should do. We want a nature park, pure, plain and simple. We have so
much traffic down Stark Road, again - another 50 cars? You have heard the
arguments, please, please, please, you're right, I've got to leave, I overstepped the
bounds on the time. We do not want any development back there at all.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Roth is there anything you would like to say before we close the public
hearing?
Mr. Roth: I think the first thought that comes to my mind is that it is interesting how many
people are coming to this meeting tonight. I did try to meet with the homeowners
because we did try and discuss what they were very concurred about and what was
going into this and I did think about this and how I would react to it if it were going
into my neighborhood. I thought I was looking out for everybody's best interest
and would like to discuss with the homeowners there and I would think that if I
would have to live in the subdivision, how I would react to it. I thought I was
looking for what was in everyone best interest in trying to develop what is there.
Myself, my partners, have been a part of this community for over 30 years.My
father and uncles have built homes and developments that people live and work in
today. In no way do I want to degrade or do anything that is going to be negative
for the community or myself. I own a lot of those industrial buildings that are off
of Schoolcraft. I owned them since I built them and I hope my children will own
them many years after this. Again, I still believe I am aiming in the right direction
which is good for developing the piece of property. What the last gentlemen said
as far as developing it into a park, that's the City's decision. As far as the traffic,
I'm hearing their comments about it. It is definitely something we are going to
have to look at a little more seriously. In our laying out and developing this
property we will have to come in off of Boston Post, there is no doubt about it. The
industrial portion will definitely be separate, we have no intention in anyway of
attempting to appeal to the City to have access through Boston Post for an
industrial. We believe doing what the intent is what the property is zoned for is
what we are trying to do. As far as the one young lady talked about her house again,
when we purchased the property, we didn't know exactly how the road access was
going to be. We believe that we can work out something that will be acceptable.
That is all I have to say. Thank you for your time.
Mr. McCann: I am closing the public hearing.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Alanskas and Mr. LaPine brought up several good points that I think really
need to be looked into. The building rotation, the road into the side and now we've
got the entrance potential off of Belden Road, the noise and the need. Maybe we
won't want to go through this again, but I am going to offer a motion to table this
and hopefully to satisfy everybody so I will offer such a motion to table it
for further information.
16048
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#5-60-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing have been held by the City Planning
'— Commission on May 5, 1998 on Petition 98-3-1-3 by Charles Tangora representing
DR Group LL, requesting to rezone property located south of the CSX Railroad,
west of Stark Road, in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to M-1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 98-3-1-3 be tabled to May 19,
1998.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is
there a date?
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-3-1-4 by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b), requesting to rezone
property located on the east side of Harrison Avenue between Seven Mile Road and
Pickford Avenue, Lots 40 to 51, inclusive, in Dohany Subdivision in the N.E. 1/4
of Section 12 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: A letter from the Engineering Department dated April 6, 1998, stating they
reviewed the petition and have no objections to the proposed zoning changes. The
legal description should be used in connection with the proposal: Lots 40 thru 51
inclusive of Dohany Subdivision of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northeast
1/4 of Section 12, T. 1S., R. 9E., Livonia Township (now City of Livonia), Wayne
County, Michigan as recorded in Liber 64, Page 95, Wayne County Records.
Harrison Avenue will have no improvements except for the addition of sidewalks to
the lots at the corner of Clarita Avenue and Harrison Avenue. Also, at the present
time no other right-of-way has been acquired for the Harrison Avenue Roadway.
That is signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer. That is the extent of our
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: This one was referred from Zoning Board of Appeals to us to take a look at the
property zoning for this particular area. Since this is a petition by the City Planning
Commission, I will go right to the audience for any comments wishing to speak for
or against this petition. Please step to the podium and give us your name and
address.
Bruce Davidson, 18914 Brentwood. My property ends with a 52 if you see that on your maps. It
is the second large lot just south of Seven Mile as a reference. I vehemently oppose
this proposal. Why would those people want to subdivide their lots when they
won't have access to the back side of their lots?
16049
Mr. McCann: What lots?
`''"' Mr. Davidson:The lots we're talking about here. The ones that have been highlighted.
Mr. McCann: On the ones south of Clarita or the ones north of Clarita?
Mr. Davidson: With the exception of Clarita none of the other lots have - you couldn't
drive a vehicle to those lots unless the lots just to the immediate east somehow sold
a strip of land for a driveway from Lathers to the highlighted lots. See, my point is,
unless Harrison Avenue goes through, those are land locked lots. My house has
been in the Davidson family since the `40s, and we only have in our legal deed we
deeded over a 15 foot easement which is insufficient for a street to go through
there. In other words, for Harrison Avenue to go further south, I would have to sell,
what is it? - 30' easement for the street to go through.
Mr. McCann: John , could they put in a 1/2 street in the area?
Mr. Nagy: Twenty-seven additional feet is what is needed because we already have 33' on the
east of the center.
Mr. McCann: So there is no property at this time.
Mr. Nagy: Not without the dedication from the affected property owner.
Mr. Davidson: Why would we allow those folks to subdivide their property. Well, I suppose it is
legal, but what would be the point? Wouldn't is be pointless?
Mr. McCann: John, do you want to expand on the property to the north of this? We're getting
requests on this for lot splits for the north. The ZBA suggested that probably
or eventually the property size would carry down the street and wouldn't the R-1
zoning be more appropriate? They asked us to have a public hearing on it to take a
look at that. Your issue, if they can't build a road maybe we shouldn't do this, is a
very good issue. But that's what we're here for tonight. To expand, to learn and to
make a decision. John, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Nagy: The only thing I might add is that Harrison Avenue already exists with full width
in front of lots on the north 1/2 of lots 47 through 51. But with the combination
and splits are two buildable parcels which would be in full compliance with the
proposed R-1 zoning that would allow the development of those lots that would
face on to Harrison Avenue. The two corner lots which he pointed out have access
to Clarita Avenue of those corner lots and the existing splits and combination
would comply with the proposed R-1 zoning and would therefore be eligible for
building permits. The only problem lot as I see it would be in the interior area
north 1/2 of lot 44 which would be combined with lot 45, all of lot 46 and the south
16050
1/2 of 47. Those two intermediate parcels would have a problem because of lack
of Harrison right-of-way. For the most part, for the zoning of this property,
bringing those already existing splits and combinations into the property new R-1
•" ' zoning classification therefore having complying lots, the incentive for some
investment on the part of these affected property owners to make improvements to
those roads by obtaining the right-of-way so that this can in deed have buildable
parcels. It is consistent with the developing character of the area with the lot sizes
already approved and developed both to the west as well as to the north. It reflects
already approved lot splits and lot sizes in the area.
Mr. Davidson:I guess what I'm failing to see is how the lots that are trapped without access to
Clarita and without access to the existing Harrison lots how would ever be built
upon if Harrison doesn't to through any further south?
Mr. Nagy: They wouldn't be able to because they wouldn't have a full width street in front
unless they could convince the Engineering Department to allow a temporary road
to be developed on the right-of-way that is already there.
Mr. Davidson: Historically, has that happened in the past?
Mr. Nagy: It is something we discourage because we really want to encourage full width
streets so it is very problematic that it would happen. We don't want to leave 1/2
streets.
v..
Mr. Davidson: But if these people persist they could build houses by hook or by crook?
Mr. McCann: It's not likely.
Mr. Davidson: I would like to share my reasons for opposing any more building in this area.
Unlike apparently most people, we don't want our house value to increase. The
taxes are killing us and it is a 400 sq. ft. home, it is a very small home. These new
houses on Harrison and Harrison Woods are giantual compared to our tiny little
cottage and if more homes are built better - similar in character to the new homes
that just put up, we will just be surrounded by giant red woods of homes and it is
going to be a major hardship. We would be suffering a hardship over and above
and beyond the hardship we presently are experiencing. That is what I wanted to
share with you.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, are we saying that lots 22 through 39 , that it is impossible to get built?
Mr. Nagy: That is not part of the proposed area.
16051
Mr. Piercecchi: I know that.
Mr. Nagy: Until we have a full width street...
Now
Mr. Piercecchi: In other words, the people that own that property can't do anything with it?
Mr. Nagy: Not until we have the other 1/2 of the right-of-way for the street.
Mr. McCann: Sir?
David Weilert, 18741 Lathers. I am opposed to the rezoning. I see no need to change the zoning
that is there.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Alan Burton, 18492 Brentwood. I am not in your picture here. I am sort of out of the picture. At
the lower left under the last quadrant I guess you would say. I have seen the new
homes the last gentlemen just spoke about but I think it is wrong to keep
changing all the time. I think one of these days you are going to be knocking on
my door to increase my taxes enough to where I have to sell my extra big lot. I
have a 93' X 400' lot.
Mr. McCann: But your state equalized value doesn't go up. Your value goes up but your taxes
remain fixed
Mr. Burton: Let me put is this way, I'm like a lot of other folks who came here to night to talk
to you about two other issues. I have a lot of trees back there I don't want cut
down. So I hope you don't do it.
Mr. McCann: O.K., that's fair.
Elaine Daghir, 18490 Brentwood. If any of you attend the City Council meetings you know
that various attempts have been made to have this property rezoned. Our area, I
feel, this is another attempt to force Harrison further to the south. There is no
reason for subdividing this land in opposition to community and hope that west of
Harrison homeowners will sell off the back of their lots in order to push Harrison
back. I know Mr. Nagy has been to the Council and he knows how opposed the
Harrison area residents are to this.
Brian Peters, 30439 Ledgecliff, Westland. I own lots 43 - 45. I am in the process of getting a
building permit to build on this corner lot. I have access to my property on Clarita
and my intention is to get an extension. Current zoning is RUF. I am having
trouble with the ZBA. It seems to change it here so I will conform with the houses
that are north of me. RUF zoning states that you need a 1/2 acre. Before that I
will split off from the back yards they were split off to 270', that's a lot less than a
16052
1/2 acre. When I have it as platted or zoned, it was platted improperly. As it sits
right now, it is inaccurate.
N.. Mr. McCann: What lots do you own?
Mr. Peters: Lots 43, 44 and 45 on the northeast corner of Clarita and Harrison.
Mr. LaPine: Are you splitting those two lots so that you will have two lots?
Mr. Peters: Currently, those lots are split and combined. into two 60 X 136' lots.
Mr. LaPine: They already had a legal lot split and you own?
Mr. Peters: I own two of them, I own both.
Mr. LaPine: So you're going to build on one and sell off the other one?
Mr. Peters: I'm going to build on one and sit on the other one until, and hope, that Harrison
will widen out and maybe not then I'll have a much bigger back yard.
Mr. LaPine: Your entrance will be off of Clarita?
Mr. Peters: That's correct.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
McCann: Any more questions?
Mr. Peters: Nothing else. Thank you.
Leon London, 6689 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield. I own the property on the south of
Clarita facing Harrison. We have already gone through the process of getting a lot
split. The frontage on that is 60' X 136' deep and like Brian I am planning on
building a housing with the garage facing Clarita.. We've already got an approval
from the Engineering Department to pave Clarita and we plan on going forth with
this. I understand what the individuals are contesting. I an very cognizant of
wooded areas. I will to everything I can to keep the trees and keep it as a nature
setting as possible. I think that is very important. I am wholly in favor of, so I
wanted to make that point. We have gone through a long process. I own a 120'
frontage on Harrison and have divided that into two 60' lots. We have gone
through a great deal of effort to do this. I want to make this point.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Is someone running down?
16053
Mrs. Carol Davidson, 18914 Brentwood, Livonia: I won't be running because I have heart
trouble. I am very tired and I know that you are too but I am glad that I came
tonight. But they have left me, the builders, and the eager beavers that are not
�► going to live there. They have ruined, have taken out one row of apple trees with
a bull dozer. They didn't have any reason except they were getting hooked up for
Harrison Woods. That destroyed all the trees. Sure, they're going to leave you
trees and everybody you talk to is going to leave you trees. My trees are gone way
up to my property, coming at them with a bulldozer. I planted those trees. I took
little seedlings and planted them. There are no pheasants left. I hope they are done
at the other end. I don't want to see it. I want to know how I can protect myself
from having thick, thick, thick clay dumped on the backend of my property and
ruined and when I did get hold of the people at Harrison Woods, I told them there
are large holes and there are kids who are going to fall into these holes. I am an old
lady and I am sick and I don't want to watch people going to court. So they took
the big, big hill and put it at the end of the neighbors property and filled it in with
all that mud and slime and filled it in and now is about this much higher than my
property. And now I can't get near my garden. My garden is about this deep with
water. You put it in your heart to think about us little land owners that wanted to
watch the bunnies and the birds. That's the only thing I've got to look forward to is
my bird feeding. They'll probably be ruling that that's wrong now. Just leave me
alone for a little while. Let me just quietly slip out without all this noise and
buildings. Since they put the mall in, nothings been the same, cement, cement,
cement. So you know how I feel about that O.K.?
Mr. McCann: I will close the public hearing, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi it was
#5-61-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on May 5, 1998 on Petition 98-3-1-4 by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b), requesting to rezone property located on
the east side of Harrison Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Pickford Avenue,
Lots 40 to 51, inclusive, in Dohany Subdivision in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 12 from
RUF to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 98-3-1-4 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is not compatible with the adjacent
RUF zoned properties in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will change the character of the area
from a rural setting to a more urban setting; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for much smaller lot sizes
than are prevalent with respect to ownership units to the west and south.
16054
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Mr. Alanskas, Mr. Piercecchi, LaPine, Mr. McCann
NAYS: Mr. Hale
ABSENT: Mrs. Koons
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-3-1-5 by GNI
Development, Inc. and the Disabled American Veterans Chapter#114 requesting
to rezone property located on the east of Newburgh Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section
32 from P to C-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter from the Engineering Department dated March 24, 1998 stating
that they have no objections to the proposed zoning changes. They suggest that the
following legal description should be used: The North 110 feet of the South 260
feet of the West 247 feet of the following described parcel: Lot 748, except the
West 27 feet and also the South 27 feet thereof; Supervisor's Livonia Plat No. 12,
as recorded in Liber 66, Page 65, Wayne County Records, said plat being a part of
Section 32, T. 1S., R. 9E., Livonia Township (now City of Livonia), Wayne
County, Michigan The letter was signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer.
We also have a letter from Four Oaks Management, LLC, 2660 Auburn Road, Suite
300, Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326 dated May 1, 1998 addressed to the Planning
Commission. The letter states that as an owner of the Four Oaks Plaza with my
two brothers and sister, I must respectfully register my opposition to the proposed
rezoning request from P to C-1. Unfortunately, due to a prior family commitment, I
cannot attend the Public Hearing scheduled for this request. It is my hope that you
will allow this letter to serve as my opposition to this rezoning request, and
consider its content when making your decision on this petition. We have the
following concerns relative to the current petition:
1) The current C-1 zoning on the Northeast Corner was intended to allow the
existing use on the property, not to pave the way for a high volume retail
development. If we were aware of the potential for this type of petition, we
would have registered our opposition to the rezoning of the Northeast
Corner of Joy &Newburgh parcel at that time. We were assured by the
16055
Planning Department that it was merely an accommodation for current
owners.
2) The proposed use of the rezoned property does not address any current
needs or demands from the residents of Livonia or any retailers other than
any retailers other than a Walgreens, which could locate in many other areas
of Livonia where residents do not have a convenient drug store nearby.
This is evidenced by the current 16.8% vacancy rate in Four Oaks and the
lack of any interest in the additional 20,000 square feet available in Phase II
of Four Oaks. This is further evidence by the substantial retail vacancies
nearby in Westland and by the opposition of any additional commercial
property off the Southeast Corner of Joy and Newburgh by Westland
Planning Director Tod Kilroy. In fact, the City of Livonia Planning
Commission, in response to its own initiated rezoning petition (91-2-1-5)
from C-1 to R-1, recommended the rezoning of our parcel from C-1 to R-1.
A commercial parcel that our family has owned since 1972.
3) We would not have leased to a drug store at Four Oaks if we had known a
rezoning would occur a this corner to allow another drug store. In fact, we
never would have invested a majority of our life savings and heavily
leveraged Four Oaks to build the center in a first class manner, certainly
more than the economics of the deal required, if we would have know that
our anchor tenant would be adversely affected by this current rezoning;
effectively jeopardizing the solvency of Four Oaks. Our investment at this
',tow intersection was predicated on limited retail at the intersection. Projected
sales volumes of a Walgreen's will erode volumes at Four Oaks, thereby
creating more or continued vacancies in the area.
4) Additionally, retail at this corner will only compound the current problems
with respect to students loitering and safety issues.
I would respectfully ask that you consider these items so that you may reach a
decision that is just and equitable. The letter is signed by John Casadei, LLC
Manager.
That is the extent of our correspondence.
McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward and give your name and address.
Steve Murphy, GNI Development, Inc. & Disabled American Veterans, 3208 S. Alpine Road,
Rockford, Il. 61109. This store would be very similar to the store at Middlebelt and
Six Mile Road. This site plan does allow a 20' green area on Joy Mile and
Middlebelt. The only thing we are asking for is a 110' extension of the commercial
north. The corner itself is zoned commercial but about 110' too short for our use.
16056
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the commissioners?
Mr. Murphy: If I could just do one thing. Currently, this is all zoned C-1 and what we are trying
``► to zone the rest of C-1 to allow the building.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are you also purchasing the property to the west?
Mr. Murphy: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then that property, sir, would remain as parking would it not?
Mr. Murphy: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Just parking?
Mr. Murphy: We are using it for parking, is that your question, sir?
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to lease that property too then?
Mr. Murphy: Maybe I missed something when I came back.
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm talking about that little piece of ground there. What is left is all parking. It is
zoned C-1 and Parking. That is all parking correct?
Mr. Murphy: Yes
Mr. Piercecchi: You're not going to touch much of the parking area are you?
Mr. Murphy: No. We're not at all.
Mr. Piercecchi: What's going to happen to that area?
Mr. Murphy: When we approached the Disabled American Veterans in the beginning to buy a
section of their land, I believe their intention was to come in front of you at a later
date and talk about rebuilding a new building on the surplus land that they are not
selling to us but they are retaining it. I believe that they have now looked at some
other options and I'm not here to discuss what their intentions are but all we're
looking for is the corner itself. We're not here to talk about the zoning on that
property. I don't think they know. They're here. I don't think they know what
they are going to do with the balance of the land, but we're asking for it to be split.
I have a small site plan if you would like to see it.
Mr. McCann: No, that's all right. We have one in with our plans.
Mr. LaPine: Do you represent Walgreens?
16057
Mr. Murphy: No, I represent GNI. We buy the land, develop the land, build the building and
Walgreens would be our tenant if this is an approved situation
Mr. LaPine: So you don't know why Walgreens chose this location seeing that there is brand
new Arbor Drugs right across the street.
Mr. Murphy: I have been with Walgreens on numerous occasions when we go through the whole
metro area. They don't care about competition or other corners. They look at a
geographical map and try and pick 2-1/2 mile rings and try to plat a store.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, is there a representative here tonight who can answer one
questions?
Don McLean, 9610 Farmington, Livonia. I do represent the Disabled American Veterans here in
Livonia. When we bought this particular parcel, there was a church on it and we
thought we really had it made. We would be able to rent a chapel to a church group.
If they had weddings they could use the hall and everything was going along real
well until the bottom fell out of small building halls. In addition to that,
somebody spoke about in a letter about children loitering. They did $9,000 worth of
damage to our building. On one occasion, they destroyed numerous windows.
They have thrown our mail boxes up on the roof. They knocked windows out.
They have done everything they could and our insurance rates are just continuing to
sky rocket sky high because of the damage that is being done. Our income is such
''"' that it doesn't meet the mortgage payment and we are going to lose the building if
we don't do something. Now we did not put the building up for sale but the people
approached us and offered us a nice sum of money for that particular part of the
building. Now we can get rid of that building with all those windows and maybe
present a site plan with a building that only has one or two windows in the front
with air conditioning on top so maybe we won't get as much damage. But things
just seem to get out of hand and once again the parking lot is filled with cars from
the Churchill High School. I went over there to try and get them to move one day
and they threatened to wipe up the pavement with me. I am too old to take on a
bunch of kids and that is the kind of respect we've been getting from Churchill
High School. We're just at a loss as to what to do and that is where we stand right
now. The balance of the property we have no intentions of rezoning it at this time.
We don't know what we are going to do with it. We been touch with Churchill
High School officials and they say they'll see what they can do but nothing is ever
done. We had the police in there a few times. They have been told they can't go
back there. In two weeks they are right back. We had people coming to rent the
building and they were scared to get out of their car because of the kids in the
parking lot. We're not kids and there is nothing we can do about it. That's where
we stand on it right now. On my part and other members living in the City, we
hope that you will approve the petition.
16058
Mr. LaPine: There are 63' X 280' zoned parking which you are not selling which I understand.
Mr. McLean:. We have kicked around the plan of a building there. We don't think we will be
solving our problem. Just going to leave the property sit.
Mr. LaPine: You're just going to leave that parcel there and find another location within
Livonia?
Mr. McLean: Yes sir. What we would like to do is if the Council approves, we would like to dig
a ditch across the entrance to that parking lot so the kids can't get in there. If
anything happens to any of those kids or get run over, it is our liability.
Mr. LaPine Have you found a new location?
Mr. McLean: Yes sir, we think so.
Mr. LaPine: How long have you owned this parcel?
Mr. McLean: Approximately five years. For the first four years it has been great but then it just
when down hill.
Mr. Piercecchi: My only concern is the RUF zoned east of you. Do you have a direct street and
without a buffer. Don't you think you should have a more comprehensive area and
particularly for the P area or R-C something to guarantee there is a buffer between
homes and Walgreens and those condos and that RUF zoned. Those are big homes
and big lots.
Mr. McLean: If somebody approaches us with a plan to buy the property residential of any kind,
they approach us for residential we would probably sell it but it they approach
us for commercial, then we probably would not sell it. We feel the same way.
There would be no buffer then between Walgreens and the people to the east of us.
A man who lived two doors down asked if they were going to sell potential use for
the property and we said no. We are going to leave is as a wooded area. Does that
answer your question?
Mr. Piercecchi: It answers my question, but I was hoping that you would say that you would
appreciate any help the Planning Department would take a look at it and look for a
good method for creating a buffer zone.
Mr. McLean: We would appreciate any help we can get.
Mr. McCann: Would you have an objection if the Planning Commission changed your zoning
to residential condominiums or some type of residential use?
Mr. McLean: No sir, we would have no objection at all.
16059
Mr. McCann: Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition. Hearing none,
I will close the Public Hearing.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Hale and unanimously approved it was
#5-62-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on May 5, 1998 on Petition 98-3-1-5 by GNI Development,
Inc. and the Disabled American Veterans Chapter#114, requesting to rezone
property located on the east side of Newburgh Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 32
from P to C-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 98-3-1-5 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor addition of
commercial zoning in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional commercial
services in the area;
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
other commercially zoned properties in the vicinity of the Newburgh Road
and Joy Road intersection; and
4) That the proposed changed of zoning will more readily provide for the
`"" redevelopment of the subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi: Bill, the gentlemen indicated he would accept a R-C zoning.
Mr. McCann: We would have to publish for that.
Mr. LaPine: That's right. If we want to do that on our own at a later date.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-3-1-6 by Leo
Soave requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road
south of Norfolk in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to R-3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence?
16060
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department dated March 31, 1998 stating
that they have no objections to the proposed zoning changes. The legal
"ue- descriptions provided with the petitions are acceptable to this office and should be
used in connection therewith. The letter was signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer.
That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Please step forward and state your name and address.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. We are coming off of Farmington Road. We are going to
keep a 10 foot greenbelt on the western side of the property. The zones will be
marketed about $275,000 or so, and I'll answer your questions.
Mr. McCann: Do you have a proposed preliminary plat you would use if the rezoning is
approved?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: Do you have something, Scott, you could show us?
Mr. Soave: Coming off of Farmington Road we're still keeping the greenbelt to the west which
will be a 10 feet greenbelt. Our objective is to save as many trees as possible.
Mr. McCann: All right. Anything further you would like to tell us at this time?
Mr. Soave: No Sir. If you have any questions, I would like to answer them.
Mr. McCann: All right.
Mr. LaPine: Scott, could you put the map back up? I can't see it. I've just got two questions. I
want to get clear in my mind. Mr. Soave, see that little portion to the north in red.
That's part of your petition, right? How does that hook into the other property
there?
Mr. Soave: We have a road that's going to be the exit off of Farmington Road. That's going to
be one lot right there.
Mr. LaPine: That's going to be a lot? So now that road comes into where? That vacant parcel
between two houses
Me. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: Then you have a turn around?
Mr. Soave: A cul-de-sac.
16061
Mr. LaPine: Then it goes up to the north to service those?
Num. Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Soave, the one that's RUFA just below Irving, are you trying to get that
property also?
Mr. Soave: No sir.
Mr. Alanskas: You're not? O.K. So this is as far as the subdivision will go?
Mr. Soave: This is the end.
Mr. Alanskas: So actually what you've done is you've obtained more property and you are going
from 12 lots to 18 lots?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: I'm going to go to the audience. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Please come forward.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Soave one other question. Let's assume in the future
those three last lots to the north sell off the back portion of your land. The road
that's coming off of Farmington Road going north is that going to be in such a way
that it could hook into Irving if that ever was developed?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir, it will hook into Irving. Hopefully in the future.
Mr. LaPine: Hopefully in the future you'll have a dead-end there, but if that's ever sold off there
will be a possibility of a road going up to Irving.
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: Since there is no one coming forward from the audience to speak, I am going to
close the public hearing.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, supported by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#5-63-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on May 5, 1998 on Petition 98-3-1-6 by Leo Soave,
requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington in the N.E.
1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-3-1-6 be approved for the
following reasons:
16062
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development of the
subject property for single family residential purposes compatible with
adjacent property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing
character of 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann: I would like to make a few comments regarding this rezoning request. I've looked
at this rezoning request and I think it's very favorable to all parties involved
including the neighbors in the west in that the parcel just south of this is currently
OS. The rear portion is flood plain and nature preserve. If the subdivision had
ended one lot north, it would have been logical for this OS piece to come to the
Commission to expand. By turning this into a subdivision, the southern piece into
R-3, it provides that the OS lots will never be expanded. I think this is a great
solution for that area.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-1-7 by
Jonna Realty Enterprises requesting to rezone property located on the west side of
1-275 between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6 from POII
to C-2 and C-4.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area..
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department dated April 6, 1998 stating they
have reviewed the petition and have no objections to the proposed zoning changes
or the legal description provided and that letter is signed by David Lear, Civil
Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward and state your name and address.
16063
Gary Jonna, Vice President 1533 N. Woodward Ave., Bloomfield Hills. I would first like to start
by putting this aerial up. As Scott showed on the graphic the surrounding land and
the land use of the subject site should be addressed in depth. Here is the subject
`ow site which is again just shy of eleven acres across I-275 and I-96, Seven Mile and
Haggerty Road. As Scott mentioned, if you reach to Eight Mile there is a
Target store, recently opened Costco WarehouseClub, the U of M Livonia
Campus, the Haggerty Park Tech Center which is RE, of course, the Haggerty
Entertainment Center Haggerty Campus CBS Technicolor, I think the Technicolor
Video Services has been renamed, Macaroni Grill, J. Alexander's and Champps and
the Home Depot located on the north corner in Northville Township.. The purpose
of this is to show the impacting surrounding land uses. Obviously, the Target and
Costco is zoned C-2. The Haggerty Park Tech Center- RE, the Pentagon Center is
zoned C-2, and Technicolor is zoned M-1. I think the aerial is very good because
of the surrounding uses which are predominately RE, C-2 and M-1. A little bit
about the development of the Haggerty corridor, I will try to move right along it has
been a late night, has kind of blossomed over the last several years and it has
primarily become a commercial corridor from Seven Mile reaching to almost Eight
and 1/2 mile road. I mentioned Home Depot. Certainly what's happening here, the
Pentagon, Target and Costco there is 150,000 square feet currently under
construction immediately south of the Meijer's store which is going to have a
Kohls and Babies-R-Us store amongst other retail stores. Of course, Meijer's
which is a major retail center and of course the Hampton Inn. A new center in Novi
which has an Office Max and a Best Buy and some restaurants and also 50,000 feet
of additional space.
vr.
The picture I am trying to draw for you is that again from 7 Mile to 8-1/2 Mile west
of I-275 on both sides of Haggerty Road, has become, over the last several years,
primarily a commercial retail corridor. And certainly surrounding this particular
site that rings true as well. We have owned this property since 1987 and we have
over the years aggressively attempted to market it for office space and we've had
various realtors and signs and we've gone through various economic cycles and we
have even now, everyone would agree, that we are in one of the strongest
economical cycles for office development and so on, as we have been unable to
attract an office tenant. However, that is not the reason for being here tonight. This
has been an evolutionary matter that has been culminating in the further
development of the corridor and what's happening at the Pentagon Center. If you
look at what's happened now on the east side of I-275, you see the Valassis
Communication building and certainly there are other projects such as Oakwood
Hospital and in fact even the 3-M building. The reason I mention those buildings,
those are the people we tried to bring into our park. And basically we were
unsuccessful. We had freeway exposure and we had the City of Livonia address
and we had favorable circumstances but eventually those quality tenants which
have a great addition to the Livonia community have chosen Victor Park and even
Oakwood Hospital. Obviously this is a major office park with a critical mass
which was planned for that purpose. And now what has happened to even create a
16064
premier office park Digital land has been purchased by Kojian properties.
They are going to go forward they say with a 400,000 sq. ft. office development. I
think everyone is aware of the Frankel project which represents about another
'r•- 70,000 sq. ft. DeMattia which is I understand about to break ground is another
85,000 sq. ft. four story office building. And certainly further down at Seven Mile
is potential for future development. So what you have, and that doesn't take into
account 7 Mile Crossing, which is under construction by Prentiss Construction
which is another 90,000 sq. ft. and a project in Novi for 125,000 sq. ft. So the
point I'm trying to make is to say this is that east of I-275 and primarily Victor Park
stretching from Seven Mile to Eight Mile is destined for anywhere from 600,000 to
800,000 sq. ft. As I mentioned before, the premier users Valassis, or a 3-M or an
Oakwood have chosen this location and we think it's probably a good environment
for that. It's developed as a park, it has the amenities of a park. It does have a
hotel/restaurant, freeway exposure and a number of buildings already developed as
office. And it will be a recognized office park with a strong identify. So we agree
with what's happening on the east of I-275. However, we have been the odd man
out on the west side of I-275. It's becoming increasingly evident that this is viewed
predominately a commercial corridor. Some of the feed back that we got from
Valassis and others, was that they really did not want to cycle through a
commercial development into what would be an upscale office property. They
preferred to have the long stately drive and not to go through perhaps sides or rears
of buildings. So I think the mold has been cast in terms of the future which is very
bright for the City of Livonia and for Victor Park and for office demand of upward
of 800,000 sq. ft. and that also success I think has been created for its own on the
west side with the theaters and restaurants and major retail users even with
Northville Township with Home Depot and Meijers even reaching into Novi. So I
believe that this an orderly state of development occurring on both sides of the
freeway. It has led us to believe that after significant marketing efforts and
evolution of the Haggerty corridor appropriate for commercial development and
that's why we are here this evening.
Let me bring my next board, if I could. This is a board which I hope will illustrate
graphically of what we are attempting here is an extension of the entertainment
campus. Obviously, we developed the Pentagon entertainment campus and we
are the holders of this real estate and our goal is to have an integrated and cohesive
commercial development that is planned consistently and has similar landscape
treatment. We've used many of the same landscape consultants and I think what
you are seeing here is an effort on our part to improve the roadway to the north in
anticipation of the development that will occur on the subject 11 acre site. To just
briefly familiarize you with the Homewood Suites, which is the information we
just gave and we apologize for not getting it to you sooner. But in any event this is
the Homewood Suites, it is approximately 147 rooms and an upscale extended stay
hotel. We do have representatives from Homewood that can speak to the product in
great depth. Adjacent to that to the south is a Homestead Village Hotel. Again, it
is an extended stay product that serves a different strata of the market,
16065
approximately 136 rooms with one manager's unit. It's worth mentioning, this
entire area shown in green and you see the roadway, the roadway is really an
extension of the north roadway and that's how we are servicing the site. This is
kind of a unique property given the fact that it doesn't have Haggerty frontage. It
has freeway frontage but no Haggerty frontage. It's a long service drive that leads
back to the property with no Haggerty identity. And that is one of the development
challenges that we have. In any event, this area in green represents the roadway,
the storm detention, the sedimentation basin, preservation and green area. So
notwithstanding the C-2 petition, a good part of this area is really used for the
transportation artery and storm water management and for open space and
landscape. The balance of the property is the subject of the C-2. We don't think
it's appropriate for that site to remain mid-rise office given the fact that it is slightly
over 2 acres. What we have shown here is something very generic. We haven't
marketed the site. We don't have any potential use. It's really C-2 for one reason,
to provide flexibility, a cross section of uses that could include office - retailer.
And I think to allay any fears about that particular site anything of any magnitude
would require a waiver use approval in the C-2. So that is basically the site plan
and who the players are and so one of the things I should talk about the hotels.
Everyone's concern is, are there too many hotels? Are we saturating the market?
When is enough, enough? And we want any project that we approve to be
successful. The key to hotel development, we have experts here tonight that will
speak to that in greater detail. But the key to hotels is three things. One is
exposure, two is access and three is that it is a unique product of the market that is
r.•
not otherwise currently being served. I think we hit the bulls eye on all three. The
freeway exposure is fabulous. We're sitting between two full service interchanges
at 7 and 8 mile. And the products which we could go into a lot of detail on the two
hotels products are unique and serve a segment of the market that I think would be
very successful. Our market study, which we will go into in a moment, bears that
out. So in terms of the ABC's of hotel development this hits the mark on all three
counts. And therefore, we believe will be successful now and in the future. So
what I would like to do for just a moment is invite our traffic consultant, Beth
Corwin is here from McNamee, Porter and Seeley, they did the original study for
the entertainment campus. Obviously, traffic is always an issue. I think what Beth
is going to share with you is the impact of the proposed hotels and how that may
compare with potential office development in upwards of 165,000 square feet.
Mr. McCann: Did she prepare a report?
Mr. Jonna: She has a letter that she is going to provide to you.
Mr. McCann: Was it prepared before tonight? Was it given to the staff?
Mr. Jonna: No it was not.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Jonna a couple of questions?
16066
Mr. McCann: Yes
Mr. LaPine: Are we getting two hotels here, is that correct?
Mr. Jonna: Yes, there is the Homewood Suites and the Homestead Village.
Mr. LaPine: What is the difference between the two?
Mr. Jonna: In terms of their rate structure and the configuration of their unit and the market
that they target, that draws the distinction.
Mr. LaPine: And on the second question I have, the second hotel that is being constructed south
of the theaters, is that the same type of hotels as these are?
Mr. Jonna: No it is not.
Mr. LaPine: It is different?
Mr. Jonna: The Amerisuites that you are referring to at this location is designed to
accommodate stays of one to two days much like what Embassy Suites might be,
whereas the Homestead Village and Homewood Suites the average stay is five
days or greater.
‘441.0' Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Jonna: In any event, I want to address the issue of the traffic study. This wasn't terribly
complex...
Mr. McCann: Do you know what, we haven't had a chance to look at that yet. There is still a lot
of questions, give us a few minutes so we can read over this. We do have some
questions.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Jonna, please don't interpret my comments or concerns as being adversarial
because they are not. I am only interested in the best for Livonia and the case of
over saturation which of course you mentioned. I read with interest the letter that
was given to us about how Livonia's ranking was very good. I wrote a little
summary here. I guess you were aware that here in Livonia there are currently 948
rooms and 77% represent 735 occupied units. That's 214 short of full occupancy
meaning that we are not now short of supply. In addition, you may or may not be
aware that five motel/hotel packages, in construction or approved for construction,
which will add 564 additional rooms which give us a grant total of 1512 units.
Using the 77.7 figure which the author of Smith Travel Research used, would
require 1174 occupied units. Finding a new demand for 444 units will be a
formidable task you must admit. Hopefully, you will accept that. I would like to
16067
know what is your plan to help us accomplish this feat and you indicated you can
supply a market study to justify more units in Livonia which considers the 1512
units scheduled along with the Hilton and Hampton just north of the proposed site.
`r•• Is there cause for concern at least associated with this project in regard to the
possibility of potential failure due to over saturation?
Mr. Jonna: It is absolutely a legitimate concern. I acknowledge that and for that very purpose
we have invited Wanda Spencer who spent a great deal of time doing a very
thorough market study. Keep in mind, I know you've heard it before, but these are
major investments, multi, multi million dollar investments by public companies
that don't tend to take foolish risks without doing their homework. I think it would
be very valuable to have Wanda just come up and talk about the market in a broad
sense and address you concerns.
Mr. Piereceechi: Why haven't we been given this so we could look at it during our leisure? The
subject comes up and you give us a lot of figures and a lot of numbers and you
bowl us over with them, really.
Mr. Jonna: First of all, we're not involved with the study session so we're here before you for
the first time this evening. So it's hard to always project or anticipate what your
questions might be. The best we can do is have our team of professionals here and
address the issues as they arise.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then you wouldn't object if this particular matter were tabled and all the
"- information was disseminated to us so we could look at it, in study and at home by
ourselves. I am very concerned about all of these units. Because I don't know how
many there are in the Hilton, and I don't know how many there are in the Hampton
but you are going to have another 200 hundred, ....you know we're looking at over
2,000 rooms.
Mr. Jonna: Just to answer your first question. Again, we would like to present as much
information if you will allow us the opportunity this evening. Our preference is not
to be tabled, but that is not my decision that is your decision.
Mr. McCann: As chairman, I am going to have to make some limitations. If everything had been
presented, we had the market studies, we had the traffic studies or if it wasn't 11:30
and we're not half way through our agenda. If we had everything, I'd say take your
time to describe it but we really haven't had all the information presented to us
before this evening so we could review it, the market study, the traffic study so I'm
going to limit what new information you can give us, I will give you what time I
can.
Mr. Jonna: I appreciate it. First, I should mention that we did provide a letter in your package
from Homestead Village.
16068
Mr. McCann: I've read it.
Mr. Jonna: That recited all of the major highlights relative to hotel demand ...
Mr. McCann: It is based on existing hotels. If you read it, it didn't take into consideration any
new hotels.
Mr. Jonna: Actually, we have. Do you want to hear from Wanda for a moment and let her
address that?
Wanda Spencer, President, Spencer Group. I'm a local hotel consultant. I'm aware that there are
944 hotel rooms in the City of Livonia but you have to look at the broad picture and
the hotels in the City of Livonia compete locally with all the hotels located along
the I-275 corridor. When you look at those statistics in 1986 there were 1863
rooms on that I-275 corridor. The occupancy was 77%, the ADR was $55.00. In
1991, there were 3,941 rooms in supply, occupancy dropped to 57% with an ADR
of$51.00. That 3,941 rooms represented 115% increase in supply. That was for
various reasons. Currently, in that whole I-275 corridor we have 4,053 rooms, the
market is running 77% with a$67.00 average daily rate. The 723 rooms that are
either under construction or proposed within the hotel market represent less than an
18% increase in supply. These two projects represent a 7% increase in supply.
The reason that we believe that these two projects can be successful is that there is
a significant amount of demand that is turned away from the market every Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday. There's upwards of 200 rooms a night going outside of
`'` the market. People can't find hotels to stay in. They just have to leave. They go to
other cities to stay as far as the airport because they can't get in here. The products
which are proposed, these are both extended stay hotels. These products cater to
the extended stay demand segment which is greater than five days. A lot of the
extended stay customers stay upwards to 29, 30 and 45 days. A large amount of
extended stay demand is currently accommodated in apartments. There are a lot of
apartment units that have short term leases out there. There are over 500
apartment units in Wayne and Oakland County that are accommodating extended
stay demands. So there is a lot of demand for hotels for the extended stay hotels
that is currently going outside. We call that latent demand. Promise Company has
two properties already in the I-275 corridor. They have the Embassy Suites which
is 239 units and they have the 125 Hampton Inn. It was there managers from those
two properties that came to them and said, we really believe that you need to build
this Homewood Suites. There is a lot of demand that is going outside of the
market. It's demand that could be satisfied by this product. It's a good product
and it will be successful. These two hotel projects represent over $22,000,000. in
development costs. So I can guarantee you these companies have studied because
they want to have successful projects. If you have any other questions, I would be
more than happy to answer.
Mr. Piercecchi: You mention the I-275 corridor. From where to where is this?
16069
Ms. Spencer: That I-275 corridor encompasses basically from Ford Road up to Novi Road.
N•• Mr. Piercecchi: You say there are how many in there?
Ms. Spencer: There are 4,053 units.
Mr. Piereceechi: Right off of I-275?
Ms. Spencer: Right. Well, that does include the area off of the Grand River which there is a 258
unit Holiday Inn there. There is a 137 unit Radison Suites. There is a 109 unit Red
Roof Inn and a 107 unit Motel Six. Those properties are included. I don't know if
those are included. I would have to look at my notes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Please don't feel like I am adversarial. I am just concerned about over saturation.
You said 200 rooms go wanting. What do you mean by that.
Ms. Spencer: There are 200 rooms a night that are turn aways.
Mr. Piercecchi: You realize that we have currently under construction 564 rooms?
Ms. Spencer: Yes, I do.
Mr. Piercecchi: That would certainly take care of that 200 rooms, wouldn't it?
Ms. Spencer: But there is a lot of demand, probably in excess of 100 units a night or 150 units a
night that are currently going to short term apartment leases that would come into
hotels if there were hotels that could accommodate that demand.
Mr. Piercecchi: Well, maybe.
Mr. McCann: We're going to move on.
Mr. LaPine: I want to pursue this. I can understand hotels like Embassy Suites where
businessmen come in and stay over night or stay a couple of nights. I've always
been under the assumption that extended living are people who are here maybe
staying at these places a month or so while they are being transferred and trying to
find another room. How does this help this type of hotel, extended living, those
200 people that you say are looking for hotel rooms?
Ms. Spencer: I'm just saying that you've got 500 rooms that are under construction. You've got
two hotels in there that are extended stay also. Those 500 rooms are available and
now there are at least 200 identified rooms per night that could be occupied right
off the bat. The market absorbs 115% increase in supply over the last 10 years.
16070
Mr. LaPine: O.K. But who do you think are the type of people that you think are going to stay at
this extended stay hotel? We've got two of them going up at 6 Mile and
Newburgh.
Ms. Spencer: There is a significant amount of demand, believe it or not, out of the Dearborn
market for Ford with launch teams that come in. There are the launch teams that
come into the Dearborn market, a lot of those people would prefer to stay in
Livonia and have already said they do a lot of work with Marriott. The Residents
Inn has already identified clients that currently are staying in Dearborn that want to
come to Livonia because it's only 20 minutes away from Dearborn You've got all
the support amenities in Livonia. You're right there by all the restaurants. You're
right there by the shopping. It's a very good place. And if you were going to
relocate it would be a desirable location to relocate. Up in Wixom, there is a Ford
plant. There are major launch teams that come in groups of 30 to 45 people for six
week periods. They are continually launching new products. This is a continual
cycle that we see at least four or five times, a year new launch teams coming in.
This is the type of demand you have.
Mr. LaPine: Are there any of these extended stays hotels in Farmington, Wixom, Novi,
Farmington Hills?
Ms. Spencer: The only extended stay hotel currently that is in the I-275 corridor is Extended Stay
America which is at Eight Mile and Haggerty. When it opened in 1996 the market
didn't miss a beat. Occupancy did not go down 1% from when that hotel opened.
And that's the moderately priced extended stay hotel product.
Mr. LaPine: You have two of them here that are different prices. How do we determine, the
Ford executive is going to stay in the high price, who is going to stay in the lower
price?
Ms. Spencer: There is a representative here from Homestead Village that might be able to address
that better than I could but the moderately priced, a lot of times it is people who are
building new homes and need temporary living place for 30 to 45 days. People
truthfully who don't have a home to live in because they are separated or whatever
the case may be. People who are coming into town because they don't really know
at what point where they want to relocate. But they want to have a place where
they can get to know the area. This product is a very good product because it is
affordable and it's got all the amenities and it might be a lot smaller than what you
might be renting for a 900 square foot apartment but it definitely makes a lot of
sense to stay there.
Mr. Alanskas: Just to bring this to a close, you've been giving us tonight an awful lot of figures,
hotel names and I'm sure it didn't come off the top of your head. Do you have
documentation where you could give us a study on what you've been saying
tonight?
16071
Ms. Spencer: I could.
New
Mr. Alanskas: Because coming here tonight and telling us now and giving us a packet on the
hotels now it just doesn't give us enough time to absorb this so everything you've
been telling us tonight I would like to see it in documentation so that I could study
it further. If you could do that and give it to our staff, I would appreciate it. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann: I'm getting an impression of where people want to go here.
Mr. Jonna: I know you want to move through the material here. I want Beth Corwin to take
three minutes and talk about the traffic study and then I want just a few minutes to
close.
Beth Corwin, McNamee, Porter & Seeley. The meat of the study is the table on the second page.
The objective of the rezonig study is to look at comparative impact of different
development scenarios. Scenario one represents what traffic would be generated
if the property were developed under the existing zoning, 165,000 square feet of
office building. Scenario two and three include the all suite hotels and then it also
includes two options for what that smaller 24,000 square foot building could be
developed as. As Mr. Jonna mentioned, there isn't a distinct land use decided upon
for that. The thing that is important to recognize in looking at these traffic
�,.. numbers is that peak hour is the time when you want to evaluate your traffic impact
and directionally is key. Given the way that the roads lay out and the access to this
property coming through that shared access drive, that we identified in the
Pentagon Center Entertainment complex, right turns into a development represent
80% of the trips in bound. Left turns out of that development at that intersection
represent 50% of the trips. So for the peak hour in order to have the least impact
on your roadway network, to have the most free flowing traffic conditions, you
want to look for land use that is going to have fewer outbound trips and more
inbound trips. Whenever we have the outbound trips there, we have to give it more
cycle time and we end up taking time away from the green time on Haggerty Road.
Whenever we can go to a situation where we can minimize the outbound trip, we
are going to minimize the amount of time we have to give up and allow more time
for Haggerty Road. So if you compare basically the three scariness, the scenario
with the probable overall least impact is a scenario that includes the hotel rather
than the office. And you probably also heard the argument before that offices also
exhibit really sharp peaks at 5 o'clock when everyone gets out. Much of the traffic
is in the same 15 minute period. And another point to consider is that the numbers
that we are putting under hotels are a conservative estimate of 100% occupancy of
the rooms as we have talked and you don't see 100% occupancy of the rooms on
every single day. So the office scenario is expected to have a greater impact on the
traffic.
16072
Mr. LaPine: This traffic study was predicated only on this new parcel, so you didn't take into
consideration the theater traffic, the new proposal across the street, is all that
r..
included in this?
Ms. Corwin: All we have given you right now is a comparison of the numbers of the new
project. But it was built upon all the assumptions that were in the previous study.
Mr. McCann: Some more questions for Gary?
Mr. Jonna: To answer the question, the original traffic study did forecast Home Depot, the Six
Mile and Haggerty development, those were all in our models, so that's why we
didn't go into an extensive study. We just addressed specifically the eleven acres
because we've got a two inch thick study that we presented during approval for the
theaters. A couple of things, one you mentioned the issue of all the additional hotel
rooms, keep in mind that there is 600,000 to 800,000 square feet of new office
development expected over the next several years. The extended stay hotels service
many sections of the market in terms of who would stay there? Keep in mind that
the big 3 is here and the auto suppliers. A big segment of the market is training. A
lot of people come for a week, two or three weeks for mandatory training and
involves around our automotive industry. There are a huge number of independent
contractors that go on temporary assignment. These are people who may work here
through the week, go home on the weekend and return on Monday. Also people
being relocated and between homes, and people in the process of relocation that
r.w need this kind of housing. So just to recap in terms of demand generators, it is the
training, it is independent contractors on temporary assignment. It's also the local
people and it is also people in the mist of relocation. Now the office generator of
600,000 to 800,000 square feet obviously they are going to bring in new business to
the community and there will be the ripple effect of their suppliers, consultants and
contractors and that will further fuel this growth. I just wanted to mention that to
augment the traffic study. I'm going to just briefly summarize.
Mr. McCann: I still have to go to the audience.
Mr. Jonna: This is my last opportunity?
Mr. McCann: I'm saying you will get another opportunity.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak to this petition? Seeing none, I
have a couple of questions that I will let you answer in your closing remarks. Out
of the projects and the change that you thought would be appropriate for that part of
your development and then moved it toward commercial, some of it on your own
some of it not. We always thought that it would be Research and Engineering to
the west of that parcel. When the theater project came in you talked about a
divided island drive that was going to go through on the north part of the property
to service the office. I kind of relied on that fact we had the RE to the north, the M-
16073
1 to the back and the commercial centers down here. I see by your drawings you
are changing what was going to be there, you've got a couple of restaurants or
some type of use like that. I've got concerns of whether we need more hotels. I've
New
got concerns that we need to develop this as a mega commercial area. The
demands for office space in this area are incredible for this area. It is one of the
best in the tri-county areas. I also look at it as to what Livonia needs. Livonia has
a majority of the space of the hotels now or at least this area between Six Mile and
Eight Mile is getting a majority of the hotels. My concern is the type of jobs that
they will produce. If we're going to go commercial, if we're going to go to more
restaurants or if we're going to go to hotels, it creates more low end hourly paying
type jobs. If a company brings in a corporate headquarters, what it brings in is
trained personnel, educated personnel, good jobs, good commercial skills, computer
operators, career type jobs as opposed to hourly type jobs. Some of those issues
have not been looked at tonight and if you want to give us a couple of minutes in
closing I would ask for you to address those issues.
Mr. Jonna: First I would have to say that we alone didn't create the Haggerty corridor. I think
Northville certainly changed the character of Haggerty Road with their HP overlay
and the Home Depot and certainly, Meijer's, and I do agree that there is a demand
for office. I went to great lengths to establish that there is a critical mass on the east
side of I-275 and the fact is that we are surrounded by M-1 and C-2 and RE on all
sides. What we have right now is an isolated site that is sitting in a sea of
commercials. I understand your concerns and I think office development will
actually help Victor Park. We have not been successful. I think 10 years and a
New
couple of cycles proves that. This was not impulsive on our part to bring this to
you. This was well thought out. This is a land use question that revolves around
the surrounding land uses and what we are trying to establish is what we believe to
be a premiere entertainment campus and development. Please keep in mind that
what we can't forget is that the hotels are very helpful to the entertainment campus
and reciprocally the entertainment campus helps the hotels. There are people who
are there on temporary assignment. They are away from their families. They are
there for several days. This gives them an opportunity for entertainment and
restaurants and so on. And certainly the theaters and restaurants will benefit greatly
by having these hotels. So I think there is a wonderful relationship that
compliments the current uses on the site. I really wasn't prepared to get into the
remaining entertainment campus, that is the subject of another discussion. We are
here this evening, it's a question of land use. We can bring you market studies and
you can tell us that our consultants are mercenaries and you intuitively think in
your own heart and your own conviction that there are too many hotels and we can
talk until the cows come home about market and statistic and absorption and
ADR's and occupancies. I think what we are calling into question this evening, and
we'd really appreciate knowing your sentiments, that you would take action on this
petition one way or the other. We believe that we are surrounded predominately by
M-1 and C-2 that Haggerty corridor is from a mile and a half, on both sides of the
road, is predominately commercial. So this is not something that is unique in this
16074
area. We have also explained that we have marketed this for a decade without
success and now it's even more difficult because people are saying they don't want
upscale office development that is cycling through a predominately commercial
area. And so we can beat our heads against the wall on this project and right now
we haven't had any interest. We think it should go to Victor. We think it makes
sense for Victor. It will make Victor more successful. Let us be on the west side,
commercial, which we are and let them be on the east side, office, which they are.
And that's where the market is headed and that's where the users are headed and
that's a fact of life. I mentioned to you that you are worried about hotels, these
hotels have great exposure. They've got great visibility. They've got great access.
They've got a wonderful product that I think is going to meet market demand. So I
think that for your concern, will this be successful? Absolutely it's going to be
successful because it has all the virtues that create success for hospitality products.
The other thing is we've talked about an extension, we're a single developer,
extending the park trying to provide a cohesive environment. I mentioned that the
hotels will compliment the campus and vice versa. I mentioned that the demand as
evidenced by the market study is real. So we are not speculating, we are bring to
you users that are real. Their representatives are here. They want to make major
investments. I frankly don't know what tabling will do here. The traffic study is
not a major issue. The traffic is less. It's less of a burden to the intersection. The
question tonight is one of land use. Should this site be commercial? I don't mean
that you shouldn't look at this carefully as a planning commission and study it
thoroughly. I believe that that will not yield. If we come back in two weeks from
now, no one is going to be convinced by our market analyst or our market study
and we are going to be right back where we started. I would implore you to, and I
would urge you this evening to, vote your conviction, take action and we'll move
on. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I will now close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, I could not give a motion for approval or denying because I have not
had enough time to review the material. I would like to have a tabling resolution.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
#5-64-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearings having been held on May 5, 1998,
by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-4-1-7 by Jonna Realty Enterprises
requesting to rezone property located on the west side of I-275 between Seven and
Eight Mile Roads in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6 from POLI to C-2 and C-4, the
Planning Commission does hereby does hereby determine to table the Petition
98-4-1-7 to the Regular Meeting of May 19, 1998.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved to table
this petition until the next Regular Meeting on May 19, 1998.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
16075
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-2-6 by Total
Entertainment Restaurant Corporation requesting waiver use approval to operated a
full service restaurant within the 7-Farmington Shopping Center located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the S.E.
1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Carlin: Mr. Chairman, might I interject here?
Mr. McCann: We have to hold the public hearing section first. It doesn't appear there is going to
be a lot of residents.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter from the Engineering Department dated April 7, 1998 stating they
have reviewed the petition and have recommended that the following legal
description be used in connection therewith: That part of the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 4, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan described as
beginning distant South 89D 57M 10S West, 1,176.20 feet; thence North OOD OOM
50S West, 540.00 feet; thence North 89D 57M 10S East, 60.00 feet from the
southeast corner of said Section 4; and proceeding thence North 89D 57M 10S
East, 130.00 feet; thence South OOD OOM 50S East, 80.00 feet; thence South 89D
57M 10S West, 130.00 feet; thence North OOD OOM 50S West, 80.00 feet to the
point of beginning. The letter is signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer.
There is a letter from the Traffic Bureau dated April 14, 1998 stating they have no
objection to the site plan as submitted and it is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police
Officer.
A letter from the Department of Public Safety dated April 15, 1998 stating they
have reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate
existing 8,200 s.f. of 7 & Farmington Shopping Center to accommodate a
restaurant located at Seven Mile between Farmington and Gill and they have no
objections to this proposal. The letter is signed by Rockney L. Whitehead, Fire
Marshal.
A letter from the Inspection Department dated April 24, 1998 states they have
reviewed the site plan for this petition and the following is noted: (1) The six
mechanical amusement devices shown on the site plan would only be permitted if a
Class C Liquor License is obtained. No other problems or deficiencies were found.
It was signed by David Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector.
16076
That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. Carlin: Mr. Chairman, I would just respectfully ask that this matter be adjourned or leave
440.
open. What we would like to do is file the waiver petition for the liquor license use
and combine the two and make it a little more organized effort so that we can
present the whole picture to you at that time.
Mr. McCann: First, I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition? Based on the petitioner's request to table after we
hear the public hearing to the date when the waiver petition catches up.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then there won't be any data.
Mr. McCann: We'll be able to readdress it at that time.
Mr. Piercecchi: But not in a public hearing session.
Mr. McCann: But there's nobody in the audience to address it tonight.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, they may have left because the meeting went so long so I am in
favor of the people being notified again. I have ideas where they can move this to
another location in the center. People might be amenable to that and not happy
with the location where it is at.
Mr. McCann: The only problem with that is that we would have to readvertise.
Mr. Carlin: If we do the next meeting in combination with the waiver use for the liquor
license...
Mr. McCann: So the same people would be notified.
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. LaPine: And they can comment on both.
Mr. McCann: I don't want to go through the republication part. We can send notices for both
issues to be heard on that date. But we can send notices of both issues to be heard
on that date. I am going to close the public hearing.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by LaPine unanimously approved, it was
#5-65-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting and Public Hearings having been
held on May 5, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on petition 98-4-2-6 by
Total Entertainment Restaurant Corporation requesting waiver use approval to
operate a full service restaurant within the 7-Farmington Shopping Center located
16077
on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in
the S.E. 1/4 of Section 4, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to table
Petition 98-4-2-6 until June 9, 1998.
Now
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Mr. Alanskas, Mr. LaPine, Mr. Piercecchi, McCann
ABSTAIN: Mr. Hale
ABSENT: Mrs. Koons
Mr. McCann: Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-2-7 by Modern
Moving Company requesting waiver use approval for outdoor parking of moving
company vehicles located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman
Road and Osmus Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department dated April 8, 1998 stating they
have reviewed the referenced petition and have no objections to the proposed
rezoning. The legal descriptions provided with the petition are acceptable to their
department. The letter is signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer.
There is a letter from the Department of Public Safety dated April 14, 1998 stating
they have reviewed the petition and have no objection to the site plan as submitted.
letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer.
There is a letter from the Department of Public Safety dated April 15, 1998 stating
they have reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a proposal for waiver
approval to park moving trucks at this location and they have no objections to this
proposal. The letter is signed by Rockney L. Whitehead, Fire Marshal.
There is a letter from the Inspection Department dated April 24, 1998 stating they
have reviewed the subject petition and state that the petitioner has received a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (Case No. 8609-157) for an extension
of the M-1 use onto the adjoining residential property and a waiver for the required
protective wall. Providing the petitioner complies with the conditions of the
variance granted by the ZBA, the Inspection Department would have no objection
to the above proposal. The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building
Inspector.
16078
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner come forward and state your name and address.
Denis Rice, 17364 Maple Hill,Northville. Basically I'm looking to expand my business. I'm
currently in the building to the east of this one where I have my moving trucks.
and I ran out of room. The opportunity came for this building to become available
and it was natural extension for my business to kind of harmonize these two
buildings into one property for my business and that's what I'm asking.
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: When you originally came before the Planning Commission for the property you
are on now, we allowed you so many trucks, we had a number of problems before
we got it all straightened out. We also asked you to take down the barb wire fence
that was around your property. As far as I can see it is still up there as of Saturday
when I was out there. The next question I have, the property you bought came
before us was called Farmington Collision Shop, if I remember right. They have
moved out, what are you using the building for?
Mr. Rice: Strictly storage of people's belongings. It is clean and storage containerized wood
vaults.
Mr. LaPine: Is that a permitted use?
;— Mr. Nagy: Yes it is, inside the building.
Mr. LaPine: How many of these trucks are you going to be parking on the new parcel and are
any of them tractor trailers?
Mr. Rice: No tractor trailers. The property isn't big enough for that. Strictly just straight
trucks and no more than 20 and that would only happen a couple times a
year when all my drivers are home like at Christmas or Thanksgiving. Normally at
any given time more than half of my equipment is out of state. I do a lot of out of
state moving where the trucks are constantly gone.
Mr. LaPine: I know with the collision shop we said there was no parking of vehicles in front
except for cars that were employees. You're not going to park any trucks out
there?
Mr. Rice: No.
Mr. LaPine: Well, I'll tell you right now you've had trucks parked out there. You had one there
Sunday.
Mr. Rice: If I had one there, it was because the rental trucks people returned on Sunday.
Because my gates are locked and I come back there and I bring them in.
16079
Mr. LaPine: You run a rental truck business there too?
Mr. Rice: Yes I do.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. The next question I have John, is part of the minutes says they had to go back
to the Zoning Board of Appeals for some landscaping. Then it goes in here and
says something about that there shall be 20 feet in width and shall consist of two
rows. Who oversees that?
Mr. Nagy: The Inspection Department.
Mr. LaPine: The Zoning Board, they can't override this part, so he has to put in that 20 feet of
landscaping.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas: I have just a couple of questions. I really have no problem with storing trucks
because as of right now, you are no longer in the propane tank business?
Mr. Rice: That's right.
Mr. Alanskas: No longer in the wood business?
Mr. Rice: No longer in the wood business, no longer in the forklift business. It has all been
moved out of there. I run a clean operation.
Mr. Alanskas: I think you do. The only thing that really bugs me is that you only have moving
and storage, I would like to see that barb wire come down.
Mr. Rice: The only barb wire that is on there -- I had other razor wire and that was taken
down.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to see the barb wire taken down too.
Mr. Rice: I've had cameras installed in the yard. I've had a problem in the past with people
going ...
Mr. Alanskas: Sir there are so many other firms that have much more things to be aware of that do
not have barb wire in our City.
Mr. Rice: I'm just a little business man.
16080
Mr. Alanskas: I know you are, I would like to see the barb wire come down. Would that be a
problem?
Mr. Rice: I've had problems in the past with people jumping the fence.
Mr. Alanskas: How many? In the past ten years.
Mr. Rice: Two or three a year.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you think that is a lot?
Mr. Rice: When it can be thousands of dollars in one shot, yes sir, I do.
Mr. Alanskas: I think you are doing a nice job there as far as your storage but that bothers me very
much. Thank you.
Mr. Hale: Just a quick question. Would there ever be a time that you would have 20 trucks
there.
Mr. Rice: The only time, like I said, would be at Christmas and Thanksgiving, other than that,
I don't make any money if the trucks sit in the yard. They are gone. They are out
of state making shipment deliveries.
•..- Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience
wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, any last comments sir?
Mr. Rice: I like being where I am. I had the opportunity to get this building. I didn't want to
leave Livonia because it centrally locates me because I serve the whole metro area.
It came an opportunity. It's a nice building. I want to stay here. I want to expand.
I like Livonia and I run a clean operation.
Mr. LaPine: I have one more question. The two properties, what is the total number of trucks
That you would have there?
Mr. Rice: If everything came to town, there would probably be 25 trucks. But again at any
given time more than 1/2 of these trucks are going.
Mr. LaPine: That includes the tractor trailers?
Mr. Rice: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I think you have more than that. Just 20 trucks on that one parcel at a time.
16081
Mr. Rice: No Sir.
'4111IMr. LaPine: I go by that property every single day, I'm going to keep my eye on that.
Mr. McCann: Any more comments? I will close the public hearing and a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine it was
#5-66-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on May 5, 1998, on Petition 98-4-2-7 by Modern Moving
Company requesting waiver use approval for outdoor parking of moving company
vehicles located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and
Osmus Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-4-2-7 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the total number of moving company trucks to be parked or stored on
the subject site at any one time shall not exceed 20 trucks;
2) That, other than routine maintenance, there shall be no on-site repair of
trucks and other vehicles; and
3) That all of the conditions imposed on this site in connection with Zoning
Board of Appeals Case No. 8609-157 shall be adhered to.
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 16.11 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the 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.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Mr. Hale, Mr. LaPine, Mr. Piercecchi
NAYS: Mr. Alanskas, Mr. McCann
ABSENT: Mrs. Koons
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.
16082
Mr. McCann, Chairman, the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda Petition 98-4-7-1 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) to amend Part VII of the
Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the
designation of the proposed fire station site located on the northeast corner of
Bicentennial Drive and Seven Mile Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 4 from
Recreation-Open Space to Community Service.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: Just a comment that this is more or less housekeeping. We are trying
to make an amendment to our Future Land Use Plan to bring in compliance with a
previously amended fire station so as to change the designation of this area from
Recreational-Open Space to Community Services to reflect the intended use for
public
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak since this is a Planning
Commission's petition either for or against this petition. Seeing no one, I am going
to close the public hearing.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#5-67-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of
Michigan, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia,
having held a Public Hearing on May 5, 1998 for the purpose of amending Part VII
of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, the same is
hereby amended by changing the designation of the proposed fire station site
located on the northeast corner of Bicentennial Drive and Seven Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 4 from Recreation-Open Space to Community Service for
the following reasons:
1) That the proposed amendment reflects the City's designation of the subject
property as a proposed fire station site on the Master Fire Station Plan; and
2) That the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan w ill be
consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of keeping the Plan
current.
AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of Public
Acts of Michiga 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby
adopt said amendment as part of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia
which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by
resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and
16083
further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the
City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the
Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for
Merriman Forest Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Merriman
Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Ron Reinke, Superintendent of the Department of Parks and
Recreation, dated March 31, 1998 stating that he has reviewed the revised
preliminary plat for the proposed Merriman Forest Subdivision and at this time,
finds no discrepancies or problems with this plan as submitted. We have a letter
from the Engineering Department dated April 6, 1998 stating they have reviewed
the referenced preliminary plat and have no objections to the proposal at this
time, although it should be noted that the existing storm sewer systems to the East
of the proposed subdivision may be to shallow to provide drainage, and the only
other available storm sewer is on the West side of Merriman Road. The letter is
signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer. We have a letter from the Department of
Public Safety dated April 13, 1998 stating they have reviewed the referenced
revised preliminary plat and have no objections to the development of this
subdivision. The letter is signed by Rockney L. Whitehead, Fire Marshal.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward and state your name and address.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. What we propose is a subdivision. This property is
currently zoned R-3. Hidden Pines is zoned R-3 and Bainbridge Court is zoned R-
2. Like the gentleman said, in this subdivision there will be 15 homes. These
homes will be marketed around $265,000 or so and I'll answer any questions you
have.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Soave, you had originally 14 lots and what you did was you bought additional
property and you are going to add one more lot to the original proposal which is
R-3?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: I see, Mr. Soave, you've increased the road from 50' to 60'.
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
16084
Mr. Piercecchi: It seems to me you've made an improvement.
gear Mr. Soave: Well, we tried.
Mr. McCann: Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal?
Barbara Beauchamp, 18986 Merriman. My property adjoins this. I am the most affected by this.
Mr. McCann: You are the property directly north?
Mrs. Beauchamp: You may not know, or even care, how I felt about the news of the subdivision
going up next door to me but I'm going to tell you anyhow. I felt betrayed. I have
been betrayed by both my neighbors and my community government. How can
something so important to my life not be told to me by the involved parties. My
whole life style will be changed. My neighbor changed, instead of one neighbor to
my south, I will have six touching my property. My husband and I bought our
home in Livonia 26 years ago because of the country living style. We had a horse
and so did our neighbors. We planted a big garden and referred to it as our farm.
We had a wonderful life here with our children until my husband died in 1994. In
1995, Merriman Road was widened and my front yard was torn up. Because of the
plumber that did the hook up to my house, I have not been able to return my yard
to its normal beauty. I did not have any help with this problem from the City
either even though I complained to them on a couple of occasions. How long has
�..• this subdivision been in the planning stages without notifying those people most
affected until it's a done deal? You may tell me this is not so but it is. It even has
a name. How can all these houses fit in with what is already there? The houses
around the planned area are not that large. How large are these houses going to be?
I want to know. Do you know?
Mr. McCann: John, what is the minimum, 2200 sq. Ft.?
Mrs. Beauchamp: There is nothing in the area that is that large. What are the lot sizes?
Mr. Piercecchi: They meet R-3.
Mrs. Beauchamp: That's not what that was originally. That was rural originally. It was changed
on us without any notification to us. It was changed.
Mr. Piercecchi: When was that rezoned R-3, John?
Mr. Nagy: In 1965.
Mrs. Beauchamp: No, I bought in 1971.
Mr. McCann: John, what document are you referring to that was changed to R-3?
16085
Mr. Nagy: When the City went from Zoning Ordinance 60 to the present ordinance 543 part of
,�� that change in ordinance the new zoning map reflected that this area was to be
rezoned to the R-3 classification.
Mr. McCann: It has been R-3 since 1965.
Mrs. Beauchamp: We bought the house as rural farming. That's what it was listed as when we
bought the house. If you are building the sizes of houses that you are all around
Livonia they are way over-sized, it seems to me that all our City government is
interested in now is developing every last open space in the City just like the
previous discussion that went on before us. There is no reason that has to be
commercial property for that other subdivision. A park would be a beautiful place
for that. Livonia is becoming a hodge podge of cramped housing, strip malls,
medical buildings that stand empty and neglected part of the time. Housing is
going up all over Livonia with little concern for how it looks as the whole
community. It looks like just what it is, poor planning and just sticking them in
anyway they can. I think that the City had better start to make better plans for what
it wants to be when it grows up. Actually, I thought there was suppose to be a plan.
A plan that was suppose to set up the City for the residents, not for businesses and
for the council members. Livonia is going to be just another Detroit with a lot of
buildings abandoned just like the school buildings here in Livonia. Speaking of
schools, are we building houses that will house families and those families will
'oiler— need schools. Are we going to have to build new schools? Are we going to have to
build another Bentley? Another concern of mine is that city lots bring city
mentality. The new people want to use fertilizer and insecticide and weed killers
on their lawns that will also kill the animals and birds in the area. The proposed
housing will cut off the wild life and the woods from their water supply which is
south of the proposed houses, which is the Tipawasse River. The woods used to be
full of deer and wild life but of course we can't have that. Can we at least maintain
the little bit that we have left? Did you know that there is a fox in our woods? Do
you even care? These new neighbors will care little for what is best for the natural
life. They will try to make me change my yard to fit their ideas. I will have people
thinking they can use my yard for an extension of their own small yards so it will
not mess up theirs. I will have children playing in my yard. I know this will
happen because it has already happened in the past. When the subdivision went up
behind us. This is what they did and still do. They pulled up newly planted trees
and flowers. They played ball and let their children run around in my yard. Of
course, they preferred to do this when I wasn't at home. They use the woods to
throw away their garbage and trash. They also take it upon themselves to clean up
our woods by cutting down trees and taking out shrubs just so they didn't have to
put up with it next to their property. Our property is ours and is not for public use
and of course, the sidewalk issue will come back again. These poor people will be
locked into their little subdivision and will expect us to pay for them. The
sidewalks will again only benefit the new subdivision. You will say that I am
16086
opposed to change and progress but that is not really true. I would not mind a few
houses in this area but 15 is way too much. The lots in this area have been marked
with modest houses. I would support improvement that is really improving the area
not just putting a bunch of houses in a row in a small area. This kind of strip
building is going on all over Livonia. When I was out today riding around Livonia,
there is a house on the corner of Stamford and 6 Mile. There is a sign displayed
both in the front and side street that this lot was going to be divided into two and
advising of a public hearing. I stopped and talked to the lady across the road. I
asked her if she minded that that property was going to be divided. She said no. I
asked her why? She said it wasn't going to interfere with anything if they divide it
that way but she was opposed to the subdivision that was put in west of her. They
were started over three years ago and are still not complete. Houses stand
unfinished. She said she wasn't notified about that either. Most of my neighbors
were not notified. We did not know anything about this subdivision. Why has
there been no public notification of this? In calling my neighbors they hadn't
heard anything about this. They were as surprised as I was. Why don't we have a
sign that says you wanted to buy this property and subdivide it? Finally, I want to
address the methods of Mr. Duggan. He called me at the end of February and asked
to buy my property. I told him it wasn't for sale, and he said I might as well sell it
because he had already bought all of my neighbors property. I later learned this
wasn't true at the time. But he told that to all the neighbors that he had already
bought the property. I felt quite intimidated by him. I do not feel it is right that
someone who is suppose to be my representative in City government is in fact the
',`,, person who is developing this plan for his own personal gain. He continues to call
other homeowners and tries to get them to sell their property to him . He called the
other lady I mentioned earlier several times trying to get her to see off her extra lot.
Stepping off the podium and not voting is not enough. His influence is already
present. It is present among you. You work with him daily. Thank you.
Tom Beauchamp, 18986 Merriman, son of Barbara and the property directly affected north of the
proposed subdivision. I am appalled first at the news of the new subdivision going
in next door and secondly, more importantly, that an elected official has forced this
development through the system. There are numerous questions that remain
unanswered concerning this and we need to know, is this a done deal? Do we
have any chance? Do we? Is this already done? It says here that this is a
preliminary plat approval. What does that mean?
Mr. McCann: John, do you want to explain the preliminary plat?
Mr. Nagy: There are two stages in the development of property pursuant to the plat act of the
City of Livonia. The first phase is called preliminary. It deals with it in a
preliminary way in terms of the layout of the streets and road patterns and the lot
sizes themselves so as to see if the development is consistent with City codes in
terms of zoning of the property with respect to the thoroughfare plans to streets
rights-of-way. So once the design of the subdivision is determined, its layout has
16087
gone through the process and is approved, the next phase is the final phase, the final
plat. That is when you deal with all the actually engineering requirements, sizing
all the utilities, designing the roads in terms of their right-of-way or curb cuts or
storm flows that is related. Then the City approves that in final form and bonds are
posted and construction then is commenced. It is only upon approval of the final
plat that the actual lots within the area can be sold. What you do when you have
the preliminary design approved, that gives the proprietor of the subdivision the
reliance that the design itself is acceptable to the City of Livonia so he can go
forward and make the investment in detail engineering plans to obtain the approval
of the final phase. So it is an important step although it is called preliminary. But
it is the foundation upon which the engineering and final design will be based upon.
Mr. Beauchamp: First, I want to know how long this process has been taking place.
Mr. Nagy: The City requires a 10% per lot review fee. The subdivision was submitted and a
review fee was paid on February 20, 1998. That was when this officially became a
part of the City review process.
Mr. Beauchamp: How is it our neighbor who sold his entire lot has been told this was in the
planning stages for over a year now?
Mr. McCann: Sir, you have to direct your questions to the Chair and the Chair can direct them to
the Planning Director if he wants. He can make plans to do anything in the world,
whatever he wants but until he files with the City nothing is official. No action has
been taken other than administrative review. This is the first step toward any public
approval of this process and today is the first day the City has taken any
affirmative action towards approving this. Now some of the concerns are this
didn't require a change of zoning. This is proper zoning and within the class
zoning it is suppose to be . This zoning has been this way since 1965. Everything
meets the requirements. We have notes up here that each of the City Departments
have reviewed it. Are those things deficient? Are the roads 60'? Yes. Does each
lot meet the minimum R-3 requirements as the neighborhood does? Yes. They
report this to us and we make a preliminary plat approval saying yes it meets the
requirements. Yes, it meets the basic safety requirements. Yes, it is the right
zoning. That is our job and we will forward it on. Eventually City Council will
make the final plat approval, Planning Commission then City Council.
Mr. Beauchamp: How is it that Mr. Duggan can parade around the neighborhood claiming that its
already locked solid?
Mr. McCann: If he is, I don't know. He cannot mix his administrative work as a councilman with
his personal work. I assume that that is why he steps off the podium if there is
something that deals with real estate. Many of us have things that interfere. We all
live in the City and we all work in the community.
16088
Mr. Beauchamp: Do you use your job to work deals through like this?
Mr. McCann: I try not to and I don't know what he has used his influence for. I never had a
discussion with him regarding the subdivision. I don't know if any other member
has. Until you brought it up, I had no idea that it was anything other than when I
saw Mr. Soave come up it was anything other than Merriman Forest Subdivision.
Mr. Beauchamp: Convenient.
Mr. McCann: We have to stick with the preliminary plat. We have to determine if there is an
objection that this meets the requirements of a R-3 district. That is what our
concern is here tonight.
Mr. Beauchamp: Like the gentleman said before, that is not our concern, whether it meets your
code. It doesn't fit in with the area. It doesn't fit in with the community. It doesn't
fit in with our life style.
Mr. McCann: That is a valid concern that it doesn't meet the residential nature. Is there anything
additional?
Mr. Beauchamp: Yes. I have more. I have been living there 25 years and I have devoted the last
6 years of my life in the study of architecture and work in the profession of
-400. architecture right now and of those years one thing I have learned is that there is
good architecture and there is bad for many reasons. Since this is preliminary, you
would probably not want me to go into these reasons.
Mr. McCann: If they go into subdivision design and the layout of the plan, yes I would. That is
why we are here tonight.
Mr. Beauchamp: As stated before by my mother, the City of Livonia seems to be going in a
direction that is contrary to what has previously been established in the City of
Livonia. A community of rural mixed with an appropriate amount of business,
industrial, commercial and residential. It has a certain feel to it. Livonia is well
noted for its character. Recent years have proven that the City of Livonia is not
sticking with that character. As stated earlier every possible space, every piece of
land seems to be developed wastefully, unbeneficially by these developments. Yes
it is growth, yes it is development and progress but is it beneficial and I say no.
And I think the City needs to reconsider where the city is going on keeping the
character of Livonia so I would encourage you to not approve this proposal,
preliminary plat proposal.
Mr. McCann: O.K., thank you sir.
16089
Suzanne Beauchamp, 18986 Merriman, Barbara's daughter. I have grown up in that house. First
of all I do not understand why there was no sign put up on this property notifying
,,r the residents of this new subdivision with 15 new homes going up. My mother
received a notice maybe a week ago of this hearing today. And she was suppose to
get all organized and come here and notify other residents who had not been
notified. As far as we know she was the only person notified and she is not the
only person affected. I see signs all over Livonia when there is going to be such a
division in a lot there is a sign that notifies everyone driving by of this division and
this was not done and I don't know why.
Mr. McCann: There are certain requirements with the City, change of zoning, lot splits and there
is a separate City ordinance requiring certain posting of the notice on the property.
I don't think we have one for preliminary plat so only those people who actually
abut the preliminary plat are given actual notice.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Ms. Beauchamp: I see a lot more people touching that property than just my mother and us.
Mr. McCann: The City tax records show the people who are notified as abutting properties that is
where the notice is sent and it is published in the newspaper for tonight's agenda.
Ms. Beauchamp: I also want to direct everyone's attention to this beautiful symbol up here. The
,` City of Livonia - what is that in the center of it? A stalk of wheat. Does anyone
see any wheat left in Livonia? Now we are losing that part. There is no concern as
to the wildlife that will be destroyed by this. Right now I am trying to look into the
ramifications of such a thing with the EPA and I just think that it is gross neglect
that there is no concern for this wild life. We are just concerned about putting up a
bunch of houses wherever there is a morsel of land that someone is willing to sell.
My biggest problem about this is Mr. Duggan. He is a member of the City Council.
He is someone we voted for to represent us and yet he is not representing us he is
representing his own business. My point is if he can step down and not vote on this
that does not make a single bit of difference. He has influenced every single person
in city government just by the mere fact that he is your peers. Just by that mere fact
nobody in city government can honestly say that they can be unbiased in such a
ruling as of today. In our country nobody would stand trial in front of a jury that is
biased towards the person persecuting the defendant yet this is what is happening
today. This is indeed a trial. You may not feel that it is a trial but my family and
the surrounding neighbors are being sentenced to hellish conditions. There is no
concern for these neighbors and yet in essence a biased jury is able to decide on this
and I don't think this is right that Mr. Duggan has that power We didn't give him
the power to use in his own interest. I am strongly opposed to this and I have
talked to many residents in Livonia who are moving out because they are so
disgusted with the development in this city that has no concern with how the city
looks. They have no concern for the fact that this is an area where the large lots,
16090
modest homes, 1,000 sq. ft. homes, and that does not compare to 2300 sq. ft
homes. And the lot sizes are tiny in comparison and that is what you said you are
looking at. A year ago I called the Planning Commission about putting a small
home in the back of my mom's lot. I was told that would not be possible unless
that home matched all the homes in the area Now how can that be possible and
yet he can put up houses that are huge and have tiny little lots. I am opposed to
this.
Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to say one thing. Number one, Mr. Duggan does not influence us
and number two, if you look at that map where it says R-2, that's a smaller lot,
there's 21 homes there, o.k. to your left is R-3, and this is 5.72 acres and we only
considering 15 homes, that is not a bad mix. Thank you.
Ms. Beauchamp: I believe it is. For one thing ...
Mr. Alanskas: We're not debating.
Angie Kaufman, 19000 Merriman. I live right next door to the Beauchamps, north. I am strongly
opposed to this. We do not need this. I have lived in Livonia my whole life and
always been proud of it. Something's going wrong. I have friends who say "you
live on Merriman" whow! You have land, you have trees, you don't have anyone
right next door to you. We have way in the back of our land a woods area which
we love. This is going to happen to Beauchamps because it has happened to us.
We have neighbors in back of us that little by little try to take over our land. My
husbands walks back there and says, my, what's happening? My he's cut down
some of our trees. Why? Because his yard is too small. Is that my fault that he
bought there? It's happened to us and their lots are small and our lots are large and
what we do we need it for? We chose to live there. We have wild life, I've seen
the fox. When my grandchildren come over they ask me to take them out to see the
bunnies. What's going to happen- they are all going to leave. And I'm proud if
where I live. We don't need those homes there. We have a subdivision across the
street. It was hard on all of us when we had 5 lanes put in front of our homes
because we liked the two lanes. Now we have tons of traffic. Yes we fought very
hard not to have sidewalks because it brings the solicitors. We like the rural area, it
is beautiful. The beautiful trees. Everyone takes very good care of their lawns.
And I knew nothing about that house until I found out a week ago about tonight's
meeting one night when I got home from work. I didn't know anything about it.
Now I should have gotten a letter in the mail to have that choice. It's wrong. We
are strictly opposed to it. Please consider it. We don't need that there.
Dennis Farmer, 18699 Bainbridge. I have something I would like to put up to show you. My
house will be the most affected. I live in Lot 22 which is mostly affected by this
should it pass.
Mr. McCann: Did you receive a notice, Mr. Farmer?
16091
Mr. Farmer: I did receive a letter, however, had it not been for a neighbor seeing someone doing
a survey, I don't know if I would have. That's how we found out about this
originally. I also brought some pictures to show. They are family pictures; some
old ones but the essence of the pictures is to show the serenity of the area which we
enjoyed. I have lived and worked in this city for 30 years, taxpayer, voter,just
recently retired in December. Dedicated 30 years of my life to the city. I have
always been happy to see originally how the city separated itself commercially and
residentially - good planning. However, in the last few years, like most people, I
have seen these micro subs popping up whenever there is a lot or a piece of land, a
house goes up. In fact, did you gentlemen receive our letter form our association
from our subdivision dated March 22?
Mr. McCann: John, is that letter here?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it was read into the record.
Mr. Farmer: There are numerous signatures of taxpayers also opposed to this. We are strongly
opposed to this. In fact, not only us, the people who spoke before me, but on April
5 on the front page of the Livonia Observer, City Council is looking into possibly
coming out with a new ordinance to stop all of this. I would hate to see this be
passed and this micro sub behind our house be the last before it is stopped. So we
oppose this strongly and we would like to see this one stopped, none of these micro
subs going up until the Council has a chance and apparently the citizens who voted
them in are going to them because this obviously is a concern to them if this makes
the front page of the Observer and I'm sure you are going to hear more about that in
the future. Just to give you some idea, and I know you gentlemen sit here, and
lady, and you are disassociated with what's going on out there. Your concern is it
meets the zoning rules.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Farmer, I don't think that's quite true. We all live in different areas of the city,
we all live in different types of zoning. We all have different things that affect our
subdivision. That is why we are appointed by the Mayor, confirmed by the Council
because we represent various areas of the city. In my neighborhood, two years ago,
a big project came up. That's why we are here. We are all citizens of Livonia. We
are residents of Livonia. We devote a lot of our time. We work very had at this.
Mr. Farmer: I'm sure you do. I'm sure you would have better things to do with your time if you
weren't concerned with what your responsibilities are. I guess what we are seeing
is rather than just because he went and bought this property because he meets all
the criteria within the zoning;just because something is legal doesn't make it
morally right. Abortion is legal, smoking is legal, drinking is legal and we have all
seen the adverse affect of those legal things that can be done. I would like to show
you some pictures. Like I said, they are old family pictures. Just pass them on.
Just to show you the peacefulness and serenity of the area. There are no fences,
maybe one or two and that's because they have a swimming pool. When we
16092
maybe one or two and that's because they have a swimming pool. When we
bought there, now you guys say this was changed in 1965, we bought there
originally, and we were told because we asked what about back there and we were
told they can't do anything with that. So that was one of the factors when we
bought.
Mr. McCann: John, what does the Future Land Use Plan show for that area?
Mr. Nagy: For the low density residential consistent with the established zoning of the area.
Mr. McCann: These are very nice family photos.
Mr. Farmer: If this is a done deal, please tell us because we have some other thing in mind but I
personally, the people before, and the people speaking after, the residents whose
letters that you say you have are all opposed to this. We don't begrudge anybody
making money. Further west and further north, they are dying for this kind of stuff.
They want subdivisions but the subdivisions I have seen are large multi-homes and
these little micro-subs, like the people said, they are just cramming them in. We
don't need the tax base, we don't need the revenue from 15 homes, not when it
jeopardizes what other people have and deteriorate our property value as well.
That's all I have. Thank you.
Donna Zalewski, 18687 Bainbridge. My property abuts the adjoining Merriman Forest
Subdivision. The only reason I found out about the subdivision was because I was
home from work one day and had a property surveyor actually in my back yard
surveying my property and telling me there was going to be a road going directly
behind my property before any of the residents in the neighborhood received
notification. I was extremely upset. I called the City Council, the City Planning
Commission and that was when Mr. Farmer went down and found out there was an
actual plot for the proposed development. I have lived in Livonia for 19 years. It
took us a long time to find our property where we wanted to live. We wanted a
large lot for our children and we wanted it abutted by trees. We bought this
property because we were told the property in the back was zoned rural. We paid
extra for our property because the property in back of us was zoned rural and we
were told that there would never be another subdivision built between Merriman
Road and Bainbridge Court.
Mr. McCann: Who told you this?
Mrs. Zalewski: The developer for our land.
Mr. McCann: Did you go to City Hall? Did you see what the Future Land Use Plan proposed?
Mrs. Zalewski: We were given a plat development that showed it was zoned rural. I do not agree
that this was zoned back to R-3 in the 1960's because there was never any type of
,�
16093
notification given to any of the residents in the neighborhood concerning this
rezoning. I don't want my property value to go down. I have made considerable
improvements to my property. We put a lot of work into our back yard. If they go
in and remove all these trees, my property value is going to go down at least
$15,000 and not only do I not want my property value to go down, I don't think
people purchasing that property would want all the trees removed. You are calling
this subdivision Merriman Forest but yet you are coming in there and you are
removing all the trees. What kind of forest is this? What I would like you Planning
Commission members to do is take a hard look at what you want the City of
Livonia to look like in the future years. I really worried about the esthetic value of
our community. All we are going to have is a bunch of buildings and a bunch of
homes, one on top of the other. Nothing esthetically pleasing is going to be left.
That would make me move out of the city and I am sure it would make a lot of
other people move out too. Please consider the stopping of building micro-
subdivisions. It is not in the best interest of the community to do so. You do not
need that little bit of taxpayer dollar. You have enough industry to support the City
of Livonia and what we are asking you is to please preserve our rights as citizens
who have lived there for the last 25 years.
Bill Zalewski, 18687 Bainbridge. We read in the paper every year how great the City of Livonia
is. Whether it is in a Michigan paper or across the country, that is for people who
are on the outside. The more I watch the Council meetings on T.V. every week, it
is for the people on the outside. It is not for the people who are here. The things
that we want, we can't get. Just because it meets a zoning requirement,
everybody's happy. Somebody is going to get some money. Where is the quality
of life - it is going down the drain. Utilities, maybe somebody can answer these
questions for me. Where are they coming in from. Are they coming in off of
Merriman? Are they coming in off of the easement off of the back of our property.
Can somebody answer these questions?
Mr. McCann: Those are the questions that have to be prepared before the final plot can be
approved. At this time, we are just looking at the possibility of a preliminary site.
Mr. Zalewski: I have no way of knowing if it is going to impact the easement on my property?
Mr. McCann: But there would be another hearing on this matter before it would be approved. To
look at those issues before the Council.
Mr. Zalewski: O.K. Another question, can somebody answer what is actually an easement?
Mr. McCann: An easement is a right-of-way that you may have for a telephone company, for the
power company, for the utilities, water and sewer and that gives the utilities the
right to enter onto your property to put the power lines through, to work on them, to
keep the trees from interfering, etc.
16094
Mr. Zalewski: Could you please give me a definition of greenbelt?
„` Mr. McCann: John, do you have a definition we use for the City?
Mr. Nagy: A greenbelt is a strip of land that is long and linear in form and developed in
landscaping to enhance the visual appearance of screening - generally separating
incompatible land uses.
Mr. Zalewski: Can an easement be considered a greenbelt?
Mr. Nagy: An easement can be established for greenbelt purposes. Yes, an easement is a
limited interest of real estate. Generally called the "right" and that limited interest
is specified on what that right entails. Whether it is for utilities, greenbelt, access, it
is a limited right to use property for specific purposes and it is legally described
across the face of the property.
Mr. McCann: A greenbelt is more of a physical description. You maintain an easement for a
greenbelt. They are one in the same.
Mr. Zalewski: This plan that the developer has, according to city requirements, there is 720 sq. ft.
for each lot is considered greenbelt, open space requirement. With the new
proposal of him going to 60' on Pickford, he is losing approximately 10', possibly
300 sq. ft. on the easement on the right hand side of Pickford. Does this open
„r„ space requirement for this whole subdivision meet what the city is looking for?
Mr. McCann: No, actually, it comes out to about 4,746 sq. ft . short.
Mr. Zalewski: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: That is a valid reason to deny it.
Mr. Zalewski: From a drawing that I saw, the easement goes all the way around this subdivision. I
don't know the exact footage because I only got a quick glimpse.
Mr. McCann: The open space requirement is at the entrance, is that right? On the south side?
Mr. Nagy: That's right. I don't know what you mean when you are referring to something
going all the way around ...
Mr. Zalewski: From the drawing that I saw, there appeared to be an easement completely around
this subdivision.
Mr. Nagy: Those are set back lines. That defines how close the building can come to the rear
property line, it is not an easement.
16095
Mr. Zalewski: Just for the sake of argument, if you people decide to go on with this, I did a
preliminary drawing I would like to show you. From what I drew up here and this
doesn't show the cul-de-sac where he acquired the rest of the property, our Lot is
No. 23, and Mr. Farmer, who spoke earlier, is Lot No. 22. Mr. Farmer's end of his
patio deck is 15 feet from the lot line. I don't know exactly how these houses are
going to be laid out but what I did was a preliminary plan of 12 houses rather than
the 15. There is one property in here I did away with. We were looking at a 35
foot area whether is be a tree stand which if we are going to call it Merriman
Woods, this whole area here is trees and is all going to be gone. This area here is a
little more open and but there are a number of trees in here and we would like to see
a berm with trees preferably of our choice if we have to go along with this thing
and I am truly opposed to that but if we have to settle for that we would look for a
35 foot greenbelt area back here. He may lose a few houses but I am already lost
$10,000 to $15,000 in property value. And so has Mr. Farmer and all these people
along here while he is claiming that this is a big beef and that may not your
property and I probably will not move. We got our tax bill and it says my taxes are
going up next year...
Mr. McCann: Sir, I am suppose to keep everybody to two minutes, you have been up there for
twelve minutes.
Mr. Zalewski: I apologize. I am almost done. I got this bill and my property taxes and going up
but my value is going down. Should I schedule a meeting now to make my
property taxes lower for next year? That's my questions.
Mr. McCann: Sir, what we generally find is that these subdivisions tend to increase value to all
property owners.
Zalewski: To who? I am looking at beautiful woods.
Mr. McCann: I understand that.
Mr. Zalewski: I don't want to look at somebody's patio. Quality of life, that is all it is.
Mr. McCann: It is beautiful and it is nice. I understand your concern. This is one of the problems
that we have. I have sat up here and said when Livonia had 100 residents and if
the first 100 residents had had their way, that would be it. If every petition that
came up before us and we said no there would just be no growth. I understand that
over the years we do have to limit growth where we can. But the Future Land Use
Plan has called for development,property zoning has been R-3 for this type of
development for many years. Many years ago it could have come before us and
said this isn't proper. We go through the city and try to find areas that should be
rural urban farm and change it, we try to find new zonings for it. We have to work
within certain perameters. I'm going to go into it now just because people were
upset because they thought I laughed when he said the City had so much money
16096
they don't know what to do with it. Well, ask Mr. Farmer there every time the
police go in for their union to try and get more money the city claims they don't
have any money.
Mr. Zalewski: I'll pay the extra taxes. I'll pay - keep it out of here. Another question, we have
ecology issues that we have to deal with. It's the future. It's our kids lives, o.k.?
Do most of these people here know that there is going to be another subdivision
coming off of Seven Mile? Somebody has mentioned it to somebody. These
houses are going to back up and this lady that spoke up first, she has no place to
turn.
Mr. McCann: I appreciate your argument. I never make a decision until after all of the people
have spoken. That's my personal point of view. This is a public hearing and we
are trying to get all the information and we do have other residents we would like to
hear from. Thank you.
Rosalie Wolicki, 18579 Bainbridge. We were the first and original homeowners in the Bainbridge
Court subdivision and one of the reasons we bought our home was because of the
woods in the back. We really value our privacy. We can see that homes have to be
built now and them but I think like everybody else that too much is too much. We
really would like to keep some trees in the back, 35' or possibly they can be
planted because we have no privacy. If you were in our shoes you would feel the
same way. Think about it long and hard. Thank you.
r..
Melvin Wolicki, 18579 Bainbridge. Our lots back up against the new subdivision being proposed.
As my wife just mentioned, we purchased our home 24 years ago. When we
purchased it we thought we would have woods behind there for the rest of our lives
and now a subdivision is going through and like my neighbor mentioned before.
They are talking about building another subdivision just north of this subdivision.
We have seen the pictures that were passed around. We have enjoyed the woods
since we lived there. It is a way of life. One of the restrictions we will find that
with the street coming through for a turn around court right there the lights from the
cars will be flashing through our patio doors. Changing our type of life that we
have enjoyed. I want to voice another concern that no one was notified on this plan
to build a subdivision. I don't see why the city can't just sent a letter to the people
saying there is going to be a subdivision going in there. To me it seems like they
are just trying to put something over on the residents in the area. I just want to
voice my opposition to this subdivision. A green zone would be a nice factor
blocking the lights and how it is right now, it won't keep them all but it will help.
Thank you very very much.
Don McGowan, 18680 Merriman. I own most of the trees these people are looking at. I have
lived there for seven years and those trees have been for sale and those people could
have kept their quality of life any time they wanted all they had to do was purchase
my land. I take care of those woods. I clean the woods out. I get eat up by
16097
mosquitoes. I have tried to thin them out. They can have them. They could have
bought them over the course of several years. Those chose not to. The property
was for sale and I did have a sign out. As far as people talking about Mr. Duggan
he approached me on this deal three years after I heard about it. This is the third
developer that has tried to put something together and put a subdivision in there.
So I've known about this project for in excess of four years. Some of the people
brought up fences and all. Nature and all that. I'm fenced in on two sides of my
property. One is a wire fence in excess of 40 years old, it is all rotted, post knocked
and fallen over. On the other side is an old wood fence. It is unpainted and the
posts are rotting and leaning. The only side that doesn't have a fence is on the
Bainbridge side, the new sub. There is no fence. So the fence issue, the only ones
I have around are in excess of 30 years. The woods issue. They are my woods and
nobody is helping me take care of them, clean them, trim them. The last time I had
a guy in there to take care of the trees on that property it cost me in excess of
$5,000 a year ago. Nobody helped me pay for that. Now I decide to sell to a
developer. The third developer that has tried to put something together. He seems
to up an upright guy. He's made a deal. He wants to build quality homes. He
wants to build 2200 square foot homes. I heard there's not that big of homes in
that area. My home was built in 1945 and it's 2200 to 2300 square feet. My
neighbor behind me his is 1950 square feet and right next to him I think is 1500-
1600 square feet so a lot of these people try to turn things to their way of thinking.
But the facts are the facts. The property has been for sale. It's the third developer.
It's going to increase the price of my home and their home. I heard a lot of people
from Bainbridge and I bought my home from an old lady that lived there for years
and years. She probably was thinking the same thing and they encroached on that
lady's woods and property when they built Bainbridge. Now how can those
people who just 20 years ago whenever that sub was built stand up here today and
say they can't take down someone else's woods to put in another house or 15
homes when they are the very people that are living on the farm land before that.
They took away trees and farmland and killed wild life and everything else to build
the very home that they live in. They live here because they took some farmer's
field. or sod farm or whatever business for the property. Someone gave up their
property to give them the right to live in this fine community. Now other people
are just going to have to give up somebody else's view, the woods they don't own .
They have right to sell that property and the developer has the right to build quality
homes to code and add to the beautiful city we have and the fine police force we
have because we do have taxes and we do have quality homes in Livonia. I am
very much for it because I think it will make my house and all the neighbors value
go up. It will maybe get rid of the old raggedy fences around my property and
maybe somebody else will share in the trimming of the trees and getting rid of the
mosquitoes. And another thing that was brought up, they don't want these houses
done or built on someone's property but when their daughter wanted to live in
Livonia and they wanted to check into building a house behind their parents house
they had no thought of the bunnies running through the weeds when they wanted to
put a house behind theirs. So to stand up here and talk about nature and the fox
16098
they didn't have that concern when they wanted to build behind their parents house
because they thought it was a lovely place to live. You know the first lady doesn't
want it and she is the only truly serious one that doesn't want to because she didn't
sell her property to the developer. She can uphold that and that is her right. She's
going to have that big strip of property right next to these big houses and it is going
to increase the price of her home and she still gets to keep her nice yard. I am very
much approving of the subdivision. Thanks for my time.
Lorraine Movinski, 18670 Merriman. I live next door to Mr. McGowan. I can't say it any better
than Mr. McGowan. I feel for the people that live there, I hear 19 years, 25 years.
They don't have this all by themselves they feel like this is all theirs. But what
about the people who want to have an opportunity to live in that community.
They've had it for 19 and 25 years. I have run into a couple of people who said
they would just love to live behind us and have a home. And I said wonderful,
what a great neighbor you would be. I feel it a little bit being selfish. I don't see
that they will be cutting all the trees down. I believe they will be very nice for the
people who are going to plan on living here in Livonia. and it's not just because I
am selling my property. I just moved here two years ago and I love it. I plan on
staying here. It doesn't affect me like it will the people who have been there for
years. That's one of the reasons I bought it. They are going to come up on that
property and they have been there for years I understand that and times change and
people want to live in Livonia so why not give them that opportunity to stay
another 10 years just like you've enjoyed it. So we can't be all be selfish in that.
Thank you.
Mr. Movinski, 18670 Merriman. I bought here, like my said, two years ago. I did buy a large
piece of parcel. It is pretty to look at and the trees, and I do have a problem with
my fence. My house was built in 1934 , it is almost 2,000 square feet and it is
beautiful to look at the trees but on a hot summer night it sure is a hazzle to go out
there and mow the lawn. The people that are complaining about the trees and
stuff, I looked at their houses and from my lot is over 600 feet deep and I go over
and look at their property and boy they have no back yard. When they bought their
houses their back yards are very short and I could see that tree barrier could affect
them a little bit. After I sell my property, I'll still have over 220 feet of yard. I
don't think that's going to affect my yard or my house because the way the parcels
are laid out I will basically have the same back yard as I did before all I'm going to
see is a couple of houses here but basically it's not going to change. I'm the last lot
on the plan and the way the plans are laid out it basically is going to be the same
only I won't own it. Thank you.
Maureen Alfonsi, 18423 Bainbridge Court. I represent Court 5. We are not affected but our
concern is if this subdivision is approved, and we are opposed to it, but if it does go
through would he ever be able to take that road and come into Hillbrook and make
that a through street? We don't want a through street through there. We love our
16099
privacy. We don't want traffic coming through when there is a wreck at 7 Mile and
Merriman which happens a lot.
Mr. McCann: The preliminary plat shows a dead end with a circle.
Ms. Alfonsi: O.K. So it will never be changed?
Mr. McCann: You would have to rip down a home and change the street
Ms. Alfonsi: That was our main concern that that wouldn't go through. O.K. Thank you.
Phil Szwedo, 31377 Hillbrook. If I could have the transparency up that showed the area. I own
the property, I'll have to point, I am right at the end of Hillbrook. Now based on
the fact that this is a preliminary plan, Mr. Graham, who owns the property north
of me if by some chance he should decide to sell to the developer , that would put
his proposed subdivision if he decides to build houses on that property about 150'
from the end of Hillbrook and at this point I understand from the City that there is
no easement for a road across the front of my property but I just wanted to let the
Council know that there is no way on God's green earth that I am going to sell and
allow a street to go across my property to connect to his subdivision. That's all I
wanted to say. Thank you.
JoAnn Yurgil, 18435 Bainbridge. You are going to have to hear this three times. We do not want
those streets connected. The wrecks at 7 Mile and Merriman are on going even
*` though you put the traffic light with a left turn signal and I heard your comment
that they are never going to go through, but personally, I don't believe it and I am
just here to nail down Faye and the guy in front of me, three times, we do not want
those streets connected. There are lots, at least one, that has not been sold as far as
we know but we never really seem to know the whole story so like the previous
speaker said, he would like something and I would like a little more assurance that
that street is not going to go through his front yard because there is a direct connect
right up to 7 Mile and any time there is a wreck there, they are going to be traipsing
through there and cut around to get through the intersection. That is really why a
lot of people are here tonight. We do not want those streets connected. There are
numerous people on Bainbridge today that ignore the 25 mile an hour speed limit.
They go through at 40 and 45 miles an hour.
Mr. McCann: The plan shows it deadends right into a house. They can't build a house then rip it
out.
Mrs. Yurgil: I don't see it.
Mr. McCann: I am going to close the public hearing. Is the petitioner here?
Voice from audience: He had to leave.
16100
Dave Cezon, 18531 Bainbridge. It is not true about that street. We went through this about 10
years ago.
r..
Mr. McCann: What street are you talking about?
Mr. Cezon: Hillbrook, where the cul-de-sac is. They built two homes down there. They
wanted to build several homes down there. We signed a petition to stop that back
then. When they built those homes, they built a home to the left and to the right
with a split driveway coming up the middle leaving the option, I'm sure, to put a
street there back up to Merriman at some point and time. Because that's originally
how that was planned.
Mr. McCann: Sir, you're talking about right there, correct? And a street going up between them?
Mr. Cezon: Yes. They were going to bring all the traffic down Bainbridge down through
Hilibrook and through the cul-de-sac. They were going to bring traffic in behind
those courts.
Mr. McCann: John, do you have any comment to make?
Mr. Nagy: When Hillbrook Subdivision was designed, it was intended to be extended north. If
you look at the Hilibrook cul-de-sac the way that is terminated at the north end of
's"` the subdivision area, you will see there is unlike the design of the subdivision in the
new plan, there is a little pendage to continue a 60' road on north. The two lots the
previous gentleman spoke to where the two homes are those two homes are not in
the Hillbrook Subdivision. Those are two lot splits north of the actual subdivision
area. Compare that design which brought a right-of-way north of the cul-de-sac to
the north property line of the subdivision with the design you are looking at tonight
and you will notice that this cul-de-sac does not come all the way down to the
southerly limits of the subdivision area. It stops north of it by 120' to provide for
two houses within the subdivision area which will hence forth surround the entire
road pattern with homes. That was not the case with Hilibrook. This design will
forever seal off the road called Pickford and Danny from ever being extended. It is
part of the integral part of this design to stop it and forever have it as a court.
Mr. Cezon: I understand that part but what I'm saying is there is nothing to prevent them from
taking Hillbrook where those two homes were put in there and extend that road
west to Merriman because they way those homes were put in they were put in at a
45° angle like this with a common driveway....
Mr. McCann: Sir, I'm going to stop the public hearing. This has nothing to do with the site. It is
10 o'clock and we have only been through four items. We're going to be here until
16101
1:00 in the morning. We've got another ten items to go and this is not an issue
before us tonight. If this ever gets passed, it would definitely prove that they can't
connect the roads.
Mr. Cezon: Do we know what the soil composition is back there?
Mr. McCann: That is something for the Engineering Department to look at for the final plat. I am
closing the public hearing and I am passing the gavel. There is a lot of concerns
out there tonight. I would like to table this for a further study. I want some definite
answers as to when the R-3 zoning was put in there. I have been on the Planning
Commission for over ten years. I don't remember any type of zoning change in this
area. There are some concerns in myself as to layout if there can be any type of
buffer put in between Bainbridge and the proposed subdivision. I want to look at a
that a little closer. Unfortunately, the petitioner had to leave to catch a flight out of
town. I do not want to deal with it at the next public hearing when the audience and
the television know the prior item took considerable time at the next regular
meeting. John, do you have a suggested date when this would be appropriate?
May 19 for the next regular meeting. Do we know what the June 9 regular meeting
and public hearing will be like?
Mr. Nagy: I think we could accommodate it for the June 9 meeting.
Mr. Alanskas: There's a tabling motion on the floor for the June 9 meeting, supported by Mr.
Hale. I'll pass the gavel back to Mr. McCann.
Mr. McCann: Ladies and gentlemen, you are all invited back for that meeting. It does take a full
consent of the Planning Commission at a regular meeting which will be under the
public hearing portion of that meeting for the audience to participate. We will limit
it to discussion on new information since there was a previous meeting on this.
Ms. Beauchamp: Can I just ask one question? I heard Mr. Nagy say there was a previous
meeting?
Mr. McCann: The only thing that's done is the staff meets with the Planning Commission just to
tell them what's going to be on the agenda for the next week. That's the only thing
we do. They give us a brief description of what's going to be on our next week's
agenda so that we can go out and look at the various properties to get an idea of
what's going to be on the agenda.
Someone in audience: Will we be notified of the next meeting?
Mr. McCann: No mam', this is the only notice you get. There will be no sign. The next hearing
will be on June 9 in this auditorium. We will take this up again in the regular
meeting section of our agenda. Did everybody get it?
16102
Someone in audience: Is this considered a preliminary meeting?
Mr. McCann: It's still a preliminary plat. No action has been taken tonight other than to take it
'44 ow for further review so that we can investigate it, study what's been presented to us
tonight. Some of us may be out to talk to the neighbors and take a look at it.
Thank you.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#5-68-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1998
on Preliminary Plat Approval for Merriman Forest Subdivision proposed to be
located on the east side of Merriman Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the N.W.
1/4 of Section 11, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to table
Preliminary Plat Approval to the Regular Meeting of June 9.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting
property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service and
copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department,
Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and
Recreation Department.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The
Public Hearing portion of our meeting is now closed and we will go on with the miscellaneous site
plans.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by
Kasper Enterprises, on behalf of Westborn Market, requesting approval for signage
for the store located at 14925 Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Middlebelt between Five Mile and Linda
Avenue. Westborn Market is requesting approval for three wall signs and a
nonconforming ground sign. Because the signage is in excess of what is allowed
by the sign ordinance, the applicant first had to be granted a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. A
variance (case #9801-01) was granted at the Board's January 13, 1998 Regular
Meeting and March 31, 1998 Special Meeting.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner come forward and state your name and address.
Mark Anusbigian, 248 Pilgrim, Birmingham representing Westborn Market. I am one of three
brothers who are currently working that store.
Mr. McCann: Want to tell us a little bit about your sign and why you need the variance on this
one.
16103
Mr. Anusbigian: Having a strong understanding of what the guidelines are that we've set here in
Livonia as far as signage, I know a petitioner better have extremely strong reasons
for approval to be granted. And I believe I have those reasons. I have sat here for
five hours listening to everyone in the City trying to keep trees and natural
landscape and shrubs. On Middlebelt we have planted 50 trees even before you get
to the front door, most of them which are above the 11' height I am requesting. We
have planted over 100 shrubs that are in front of our building before you get to the
front door. With the landscaping and sod there were four trailer loads of sod
dropped off on that site which represent close to 100 pallets of sod that were laid on
that site before you get to our front door. I have met with the panel and
commissions before and I've done everything that I said I was going to do for this
project and beyond. I think I've met all your expectation and having talked to most
of you, I think I have exceeded many of our expectations for our City of Livonia. I
am extremely proud of what we have put together. Today was opening day which
was extremely successful. The excitement of our market is going to carry on.
When you shop at Westborn it is not strictly a shopping experience. For many
people it may be a destination for food but for many others it is a destination of an
event and our sign publicizes our events that we do do. Also, having a new box
store that is recently opened on Middlebelt, I went over there the other evening to
see what they have done to better our community as far as exterior facade, and
treatments and buffers and things of that nature that make Livonia the community it
is and to my chagrin, they have virtually done nothing. Maybe a dozen Hostas the
size of a small volley ball and a few small bushes were put in front of their
building. It is not the way I operate. It is not the way we run our business. The
walls we put up on Middlebelt soften the entrance as well. I believe I have proven
to this committee that we do know how to put together a presentable, suitable
package for our community and the signage that I am requesting is just a part of
that. In total square footage I am asking for a 6' X 7' 42 sq. ft. area. If you cut off
the corners, it is possibly down to a 36 sq. ft. of additional front signage. I am 65'
under on the walls which gives us approximately 30 sq. ft. less than I could
possibly have had on that site. I don't want to put massive signs on my buildings.
I could have put a large character or a large flat sign up. The signs we have chosen
are in character with our building and within the entire site that we have put
together for our City.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Hale: Does that 42 sq. ft. include the cartoon on top or it doesn't?
Mr. Anbusbigian: The 40 sq. ft. area that I mention is the 6' X 7" area on top above the allotted
6' area. If you cut off the corners of the cartoon, I believe it is 36 sq. ft. additional
that I'm really asking for.
16104
Mr. Hale: Are you really of the opinion that that additional square footage is something that is
imperative for the business? If you drive around Livonia, you don't see typically
monument signs that large and I guess I just want to know from you what is the
`"' precise reason for it. Today was a great day for you and I know people are going to
know where your store is. Why do you want something so large?
Mr. Anbusbigian: To publicize the events more than anything. I fought hard on the Z.B.A. to get
to this point because it is important. If it isn't, I don't think I would have gone the
three months and jeopardized perhaps as I have opening without the sign. It is an
important issue for us. We have proven that it works on Woodward. It makes an
immense difference in the marketing of our products.
Mr. Hale: You've got the same one on Woodward except it is on a pole.
Mr. Anbusbigian: The one on Woodward is even larger. The one on Woodward is 21' high. So
everything about the sign is larger. There are additional lines. It is wider, there are
more letter characters that can go on the sign, the character on top is much larger as
well.
Mr. LaPine: You know we had a little discussion about the changeable copy. Me and Mr.
Alanskas after we were out to your establishment on Saturday we looked around
Livonia and we were surprised how many changeable signs Livonia does have.
And you indicated to us, a lot of your advertising is going to be events like the
Livonia Spree, things of that nature, not only what you're selling within your store.
I, as one member, have changed my idea about your changeable copy. I'm for the
changeable copy but I also would like to commend you for an outstanding job you
have done. I was just amazed when you took us for a tour on Saturday. The high
quality of workmanship that was done on the job and the amount of money you
spent at that location, and the things you told us you were planning in the future to
do not only to enhance your business, but to help Livonia. I think you should be
commended for what you have done. I just want to add that.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the height of your sign, set back, I would say no but being you are 200
feet in the rear I think that the 11' sign is not intrusive at all.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to make a few comments. I too want to express my compliments on
the appearance and layout of your enterprise on Middlebelt Road. I think frankly
you've raised the standard of your business classification to a new level in our
wonderful city and I'm confident when the Council granted you waiver use for an
SDM license in spite of the 50' rule between SDMs It was in recognition of your
investment and care with which you developed this site, walls, etc. As I see it, your
closest competition is probably going to be your Dearborn store. However, maybe
Bill isn't troubled with approval for changeable lettering and I would accept it if it
was for announcements but in my four years tenure on the Commission, I cannot
honestly recall waiving either in regard to a monument sing. In fact during March,
16105
this body denied Walgreens that privilege of changeable lettering on their sign.
The reason I'm opposed to it is it is really lettering. Lettering is really advertising
not identification. As far as the size of your sign, I realize you like that logo on top
and I know that's really what's kicking the numbers up. Could I mention a viable
option and compromise to you? Since your distant and future plans call for an
expansion, you do qualify by virtue of being a business center for a 40' sq. 8' high
sign. Do you think you could live with that? A compromise between an 11' and a
6'? Do you think you could live with an 8' high sign?
Mr. Anbusbigian: Well, I started off at 21' with ZBA and the way we got down to the 11' was by
dropping the letter size sown to a 6" letter which originally were 8". Originally, we
had 4 lines of copy, now we're down to 3 lines of copy. Kasper Enterprise was
with me through the ZBA proceedings. During those proceedings, we determined
that if the letter got any smaller, based on the speed of the traffic, that you can't see
it from more than 45' away, which is how we determine the sizing that we ended up
with.
Mr. Piercecchi: I can appreciate that but couldn't you take your logo and decrease it in size a little
bit and fit this business center class? My concern is you're going to have a
beautiful package there but you know you kind of put us in jeopardy there on
people that come after you. They may want to have big signs like that too. I can't
ever remember a monument sign since I've been on the Planning Commission for 4
years that's been over 30 sq. ft. I'm just offering that as a voluntary option for you
because you're going to be going before the City Council who of course makes the
�`` final;judgment but that may element the potential that we may be subjected to.
They may say, well you gave it to Westborn we want one too. See my point?
Mr. Anbusbigian: Oh absolutely, because I think I will become a benchmark for frontal facades
within our community. I do have a couple responses to that. There are changeable
letter signs all over the City within site of our building there. There is probably 5
or 6, well no, I take that back, there's 4 that you can see right from where we are
proposing to put our sign and if you drive down Middlebelt to 8 Mile and back
towards Schoolcraft, there's close to 25 changeable letter signs. On top of that
there's hundreds of changeable letter signs all over the buildings that are using
paper signs within their windows to change their copy and advertisements of many
different natures all the way through that same district between 8 Mile and the
Schoolcraft freeway there. We don't do any of that. We keep our windows
clean. So, yes, the question of changeable letters has been an issue brought up but I
think there are many changeable letter signs going up through that whole corridor
which are far more unsightly and displeasing architecturally and esthetically than
what I'm proposing this evening.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are absolutely correct. There are scores and scores of ground signs with
changeable lettering. We've got flower shops and many places. Again, I can't
recall that being permitted. That's past history. I don't know if you want us to set
16106
a precedent based on perhaps bad policy. Mr. Chairman, this is something that
should be looked at in our ordinance which is viable lettering and perhaps we can
clean this process up. In your case, I can understand anyone with changeable
lettering who has perishable goods because you can't afford them, not like a
hardware store who has a hammer. He can sell a hammer anytime. We'll address
that, I'll assure you.
Mr. McCann: We need to move on.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#5-69-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Kasper Enterprises on behalf of
Westborn Market requesting approval for signage for the store located at 14925
Middlebelt Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 23, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Kasper Enterprises, as received by the
Planning Commission on April 6, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the brick used in the construction of the base of the sign shall match
that of the principal building and shall be full face 4 inch brick, no
.. exception;
Nik3) That all signage for this store shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after
closing;
4) That window signage for this store shall be limited to 20% of all the glass
area as permitted by Section 18.50(g) of Zoning Ordinance #543;
5) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application
by Plunkett& Cooney, on behalf of Champps Americana, requesting approval for
additional signage for the restaurant located at 19470 Haggerty Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This area is located on the east side of Haggerty between Seven Mile and Eight
Mile Roads. On June 24, 1997 Champps Americana was granted a variance by the
Zoning Board of Appeals to erect three wall signs on their new establishment
located in the Pentagon Center Entertainment Campus. On August 19, 1997 the
16107
applicant received Planning Commission approval to erect only two of those wall
signs on the east and west elevations of the new building. On October 8, 1997 the
City Council upheld the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The
applicant would like to revisit the issue of a third wall sign. Champps is now
requesting Planning Commission approval to install the additional wall sign on the
north elevation of their restaurant. The variance (case#9706-87) granted at the
Board's June 24, 1997 Special Meeting is still in effect.
Mr. Nagy: We have no correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner come forward and state your name and address.
John Carlin, 505 N. Woodward, Bloomfield Hills on behalf of Champps. I would just like to
indicate as I did at the study meeting, that we are trying to put the third sign on to
avoid confusion and to make it clear to the customer. I went over there at night
after the last meeting and I drove on and as I was coming off the expressway it was
not easy to gather that the Champps was there. I looked at it as I was coming in
and I know it was there. I looked at the front of the building and there was no
identification. I can see how a customer who is looking for it would be confused.
I think it'll avoid any traffic congestion. It'll be easier to identify at the night hours
and this is nothing different - and we've down sized it and I've nothing different
than what the J. Alexander's has, at the building to the south, there we have a third
sign saying three elevations, so I think we do need the sign and it would be helpful
Nftwir
Mr. McCann: Don't you think you are getting all of that J. Alexander traffic because there is no
sign there. Do you want to give up all that traffic and give up that three hour wait.
Mr. Piereecchi: I wonder how business is, I understand you can't get in the place.
Mr. Carlin: I did go in there and I had to wait.
Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned Alexander's with three signs. You are right but let me bring up
one point. Your two signs have 142 sq. Ft. Alexander's three signs have 126 sq.
Ft. Now you want to have nearly double the amount of signage that Alexander's
has. They had three and less than your two.
Mr. Carlin: That's because of the way the ordinance requires the way the logo to be
measured. We have the flag and you have to take the entire box in which it is
located and J. Alexander's has just a name and it is a smaller sign. It's just the
method of measuring it;. The flag, I believe, if you compare the lettering they are
about the same.
Mr. Piercecchi: But when you approached us on this you were aware of this. You were fully
aware of how we kept track of square footage.
16108
Mr. Carlin: Oh yeah.
ti..• Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaPine: I took a survey starting at Six Mile and Haggerty, You've got Applebees there,
they've got one sign. You've got Papa Vino's, they've got one sign. Cookers has
two signs, one on the east side and one on the north side. Macaroni Grill has two
signs, one on the building and a small one the ground. Alexander's got three. I
don't know how they got three. I think you only need two signs. To me, the one
sign you have facing the hotel is useless. To me I would think you would want the
sign on the north side of the building where you can catch the traffic going south. I
I don't know why you would want it there except you wanted it there because it
was the front of your building. I would suggest you remove that sign and move it
to the north side of your building and that would relieve your concern. Now
coming in now for that sign, I think you are jumping the gun. You're not hurting
for business that's for sure. Everybody I know goes there and thinks that's a great
place and love it but the only thing they don't like is that they have to wait so long.
There's no doubt about it, I went into two of these restaurants. I went into Cookers
talked to the manager and his business has dropped about 15%. I asked him what
he attributed it to and he said every time a new restaurant comes out people want to
try the new restaurant so we lose a little business but some of them come back.
I asked him if it would help he had another sign. He said another sign wouldn't
make a bit a difference. He said the more restaurants that go into this area will
r..
hurt all of us to a certain extent because everybody want to try the new restaurants.
So I think you are jumping the gun by asking for a third sign and I for one just can't
see it, but maybe in the future you may convince me that you need a third sign but
at this time I don't think you need a third sign. All I think you have to do is
rearrange your signs. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: I just have the same comments. The one facing the movie screens, why do you
think that is necessary because if they turn in off of either Haggerty or Seven Mile
and they are going to see the sign Champps. Why do you need the one at the back
facing the theaters?
Mr. Carlin: Well for the exposure for the people coming to the theater plus there is a new
exit/entrance coming in off of Seven Mile.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand that.
Mr. Carlin: That would educate those people coming in from that direction.
Mr. Alanskas: I, as one commissioner, would like to see you take one of your signs and put it
facing the north and then see what happens within a year and if you have a
problem, then come back and see us. Thank you.
16109
Mr. McCann: If there if nothing further, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine it was
#5-70-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Plunkett & Cooney on behalf of
Champps Americana requesting approval for signage for the store located at 19470
Haggerty Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6, be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the applicant has failed to justify the need for any additional signage
for this location over what has already been approved;
2) Approving this application would just be excessive and not be aesthetically
in the City's best interest;
3) That the proposal to add a third wall sign exceeds the standards of the Sign
Ordinance as set forth in Section 18.5011, of Zoning Ordinance #543.
A roll call was taken with the following results:
AYES: Mr. Alanskas, Mr. LaPine, Mr. Piercecchi, Mr. McCann
ABSTAIN: Mr. Hale
ABSENT: Mrs. Koons
�..
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-8-12 by Kings
Row Centers requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
shopping center located at 16701 - 16729 Middlebelt Road in the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This area is located on the west side of Middlebelt between Six Mile and
Greenland. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a 1,380 sq. Ft.
Additional unit to the existing Kings Row Shopping Center. This new addition
would be constructed on the north elevation (facing Munger) of the center. The
existing center is 8,303 sq. Ft. In size and with the addition of the new unit would
become 9,683 sq. Ft. In total area. Along with the new addition, the petitioner is
planning on renovating the entire front elevation. The center would be getting a
new architectural look. According to the petitioner, the new facade change would
bring the center"into the 21st century". The new addition's building materials
would match that of the existing building and along with the new facade change
should look as if the entire center was constructed all at one time.
16110
Ben Tieso, 18634 Doris, Livonia, I represent the owner. The building was built in 1974 and has
not had any renovation since then and tenants need to expand and they have no
where else to expand except outside of the city. So the purpose of the addition is
'` to accommodate the tenants that are there and also so they can continue to stay
there and also the center is tired and needs a new look. That is why we are trying to
put this altogether all in one package as well as new landscaping. I did want to
correct something regarding the parking. Has that issue been resolved, Mr.
Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: I believe it has, yes.
Mr. Tiseo: There was some confusion on that. I'm here to answer any questions that you
might have.
Mr. Alanskas: So your new addition will be next to the cleaners?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: On that side of the wall there, they have glass windows. What are you going to do
there? There is going to be a wall and all they'll have is the front windows? And
they also had an exit door to get out to get out to the side of parking. They won't
have that anymore. They won't have an exit door anymore?
Mr. Tiseo: It's possible they could have an exit door.
Mr. Alanskas: You couldn't have an exit door if you have a building there.
Mr. Tiseo: I'm sorry, you mean for the cleaners? That's right.
Mr. Alanskas: So they'll be losing that?
Mr. Tiseo: That's correct. But there would be another exit door.
Mr. Alanskas We were there Saturday, Mr. LaPine and I, and the parking lot is in atrocious
condition. What plans do you have to do with the parking lot?
Mr. Tiseo: At this point we were going to seal it and restripe it.
Mr. Alanskas: You can't seal a hole.
Steven Band, partners with Kings Row. Basically what we are going to do is when we add
that addition that's going to be cutting up part of the asphalt that is going to need
some repair. There are other sections in there that are going to be replaced or
repaired depending on what the needs are. Part of which comes under how the
whole thing lays out and where we're going in and in a rush to get things done
16111
the time done on this thing because in Michigan there is a certain time frame you
have to do building. We are also in a situation on this were we may lose our
contractor to another job because of the time element involved. We right now have
'," some proposals that we are trying to bid out on the refixing or re-doing the parking
lot. We do know there is a need that it does have to be done.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say repair, I would say that 80% of that parking lot that is not even
usable. You've got holes there up to a foot deep on the side. Your property is on a
slant and when we were there it was raining and you could see the water running
towards the bottom there.
Mr. Band: We are getting prices for that. Part of that came from damage that the city did
when they went down in the ravine and apparently they hired a contractor and
without our prior approval, he ran bulldozers off the side and broke that up.
Right now we have called experts in the business to give some estimates of what
needs to be done. We don't have those back yet.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. I have no further questions until we see the materials.
Mr. McCann: John, did you have recommendation regarding the pavement?
Mr. Nagy: We expect them to reconstruct the damaged sections of the parking lot.
Mr. McCann: O.K. put that in the notes.
Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, what about the sign. It looks like it needs to be updated as well. It
needs to be brought up to the 21st century as you guys indicate in your notes. Any
plans on doing that at all?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes, it is out intent to refinish the sign, we're not going to be changing the body of
the sign other than add an pediment to the top that would match the green that is
proposed on the metal front, as well as trimming the sides the same color of green
Mr. Hale: The other thing question I want to ask you, your dumpster is very noticeable
as you are traveling down Middlebelt. Have you guys thought about enclosing that
dumpster?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes. The plans do indicate that the dumpster will be enclosed.
Mr. Hale: O.K. That's all I have.
Mr. Piercecchi: Did you bring any of the materials tonight?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes we did.
16112
Mr. Piercecchi: We want to see the color. You've got two colors of the 8 X 8's.
Mr. Tiseo: That's correct. In the rendering in the color elevation it shows the mixture of the
color tiles and that's why we have the dark brown and the beige color.
Mr. Piercecchi: The dark brown is going to go around the windows?
Mr. Tiseo: Both - that's correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: The light color is going to go..
Mr. Tiseo: Up above
Mr. Piercecchi: I thought that was going to be dryvit.
Mr. Tiseo: It is. Up above is the dryvit type of material. I have two different colors.
Here depicted in the elevation.
Mr. LaPine: Who is moving into the addition?
Mr. Tiseo: I would have to defer back to the owners.
Mr. Band: What we have right now is a situation where over the last ten years we've lost two
or three tenants. We have had two vacancies over the last two months. What we
have in there is that our tenants end up doing so well there is an expansion need that
they end up moving to other communities. Right now I have a situation with the
fine wine source that's in there which is a fine wine collectible. He is to the max on
room and made a commitment to go into that new unit and expand and he may
end up staying where he is and going in there as well. So he's doing custom wine
racks, high end type of stuff and he just doesn't have the room. .
Mr. LaPine: Does he sell wine in there by the bottle? Does he have a liquor license? What is
the story?
Mr. Band: He does have a beer and wine license.
Mr. LaPine: Does he sell by the bottle or by the case? I see stuff stacked all over the place.
Mr. Band: It is pretty much by the case but I guess if you want a bottle he does sell the high
end stuff.
Mr. LaPine: So he does cater to the public?
Mr. Band: He does cater to the public - it is open door.
16113
Mr. LaPine: All your signage across here, I hope you are going to standardize that. By that I
mean we're not going to have red, yellow, purple, green. - all the signs are going to
basically be the same color.
Now
Mr. Band: We have not finalized that with the tenants. I'm not sure who I have in there, for
example if I have State Farm in there they have to deal with a corporate logo. I'm
not sure about some of the other tenants in there. That's a detail that we would
have to work out with the signage. We are going to stay with the individual type of
signs.
Mr. LaPine: Also, when you are out there you see all type of tenant signs on these buildings.
Let's try to hold that to a minimum.
Mr. Band: We try to make sure it does not look like a flea market. We want a professional
standard that stays in the property.
Mr. LaPine: The only other thing I have to say, is the parking lot needs to be repaved,just not
patching. If you patch here, something down here isn't taken care and in a few
years that's going to need repair. So if you are going in there to make a whole
renovation, I think you should repair the whole parking lot.
Mr. Band: That's why we have two or three asphalt companies giving us proposals.
Mr. LaPine: The last thing I want to ask, all the stones out along Middlebelt, I hope that's all
,u, gone.
Mr. Tiseo: Is that the new landscape plan you have there?
Mr. LaPine: It says shredded hardwood mulch.
Mr. Tiseo: Yes, we are removing those stones out of there, putting in new vegetation.
Mr. LaPine: Are you going to put in some shrubs? Are you going to do some nice landscape?
Mr. Tiseo: Yes, there is landscaping indicated on that plan.
Mr. Alanskas: New landscaping? Not existing
Mr. Tiseo: Yes sir, brand new.
Mr. Alanskas: You have a few flower boxes in front of the stores. I call them weed boxes
because I don't think they have anything in them for the past ten years. I hope you
plan on putting new boxes in there or landscaping those boxes.
Mr. Tiseo: If they are there, yes sir.
16114
Mr. Alanskas: There are a few there and they look terrible.
Mr. Tiseo: They are probably scheduled to be removed.
Mr. Alanskas: If you could upgrade those and keep them in a nice condition we would appreciate
it. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are you changing the main sign out front?
Mr. Tiseo: No that's staying. We're only going to dress it up. We are leaving the body of sign
alone.
Mr. McCann: Are you putting a pediment on top?
Mr. Tiseo: No, we're putting a pediment on top to reflect the triangular portion , that's
going to reflect triangular portion that's going to be the new facade on the center.
Mr. Hale: Do they need to come back for that John?
Mr. Nagy: It all depends on how extensive it is. If they don't change the sign face, then the
sign is grandfathered in. They came make necessary repairs or ordinary
replacements to sustain the life of the sign. If it represents an expansion or
addition, then they would be prohibited from doing that.
Mr. Hale: So then they would have to come back before us.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was
##5-71-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 98-4-8-12 by Kings Row Centers requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the shopping center located at 16701-16729
Middlebelt Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 14, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site, Landscape and Elevation Plan marked Sheet P1 prepared by
Redstone Tiseo Architect, as received by the Planning Commission on April
14, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
•r.
16115
3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
4) That the petitioner shall meet to the Engineering Department's
satisfaction the following requirement as outlined in the correspondence
dated April 28, 1998:
that the hazardous public sidewalk located next to the eastern
drive on Munger Avenue shall be replaced as part of this project
5) That the petitioner shall meet to the Department of Public Safety's
satisfaction the following requirement as outlined in the correspondence
dated May 1, 1998:
that the required handicap spaces shall be evenly dispersed
across the entire front (east) side of the building
that each handicap space shall have a symbol of compliance
that each handicap space shall be at least 12 feet wide or 8
feet side with a 5 foot adjacent access aisle
- that handicap ramps shall be provided for each handicap space to
allow access to raised storefront walkway
6) Approval does not extend to signage and the parking lot will be completely
restored to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and restriped as
well.
Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, this conditional use approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY
from the date of approval, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval
shall be null and void at the expiration of said period.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-8-13 by the
City of Livonia requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a fire station on
property located at 34850 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile and Bicentennial
Drive. This site is presently going through the process of being designated a fire
station site on the Master Fire Station Plan. Because this site is zoned PL, there are
no regulations specified in the ordinance as to setbacks, parking, landscaping etc.
The submitted Site Plan shows that the new station house would be accessed by
16116
two drives off Bicentennial Drive. The Landscape Plan shows that the site would
be attractively landscaped throughout. The Elevation Plan shows and notes that the
building would be brick on all four sides with a shingled roof.
Also proposed with this petition is a new comfort station. This new facility would
be located across Bicentennial Drive from the proposed fire station. The new
comfort station would also be brick on all four sides and have a shingled roof.
Mr. McCann: Scott, could you flip the page over so those who are still awake can get a good look
of our proposed new fire station at Bicentennial Park.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the comfort station- how far is that from the fire station?
Mr. Miller: Just across Bicentennial Drive.
Mr. Alanskas: From here it looks pretty far but it can't be that far.
Mr. Nagy: Just across the road and there is an intervening parking lot between the road and the
comfort station.
Mr. Alanskas: So it's 200 feet?
Mr. Nagy: At least 200 feet.
''"" Mr. LaPine: Scott, the comfort station is going to be for men and women, a bathroom? Now
who is going to be in charge?
Mr. Nagy: Parks and Recreation will have an office in there and there will storage on 1/2 of
the building.
Mr. LaPine: Is there going to be an exit on to Farmington Road?
Mr. Nagy: Off of Bicentennial and it will be reconstructed. There will be traffic lights
stopping the traffic north of the drive and at Bicentennial Drive allowing the
intersection to clear.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#5-72-98 RESOLVED that, the city Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 98-4-8-13 by City of Livonia requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a fire station on property located at 34850 Seven Mile Road in
the S.W. 1/4 of Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions:
16117
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 prepared by
Coquillard/Dundon/Peterson and Argenta, as received by the Planning
Commission on April 20, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet SD-1 prepared by
Coquillard/Dundon/Peterson and Argenta, as received by the Planning
Commission on April 20, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the Elevation Plans marked Sheets A-1 & A-5 prepared by
Coquillard/Dundon/Peterson and Argenta, as received by the Planning
Commission on April 20, 1998, are hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
4) That the petitioner shall meet to the Engineering Department's satisfaction
the following requirement as outlined in the correspondence dated April 28,
1998:
that the sidewalk connecting the new sidewalk and Bicentennial
Drive shall be eliminated.
Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, this conditional use approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR
ONLY from the date of approval, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-8-14 by Tri-
West Development requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and a site plan
required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal for
a site condominium development on property located at 18150 Wayne Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 9.
Mr. Miller: The location is on the southeast corner of Wayne and Curtis. The petitioner is
requesting approval to develop a site condominium development along the south
side of Curtis Avenue. The submitted Site Plan shows that the new development
would consist of eight(8) condominium units. Each condominium unit would front
off Curtis Avenue. A note on the plan specifies that the new neighborhood would
be called "Woods of Sheffield Estates Site Condominium". Each condominium
unit conforms to all requirements of an R-4B zoning district. A copy of the Master
Deed and bylaws for this new development has been submitted. The City Law
Department has been given a copy for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann: John, any correspondence?
16118
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter from the Engineering Department dated April 28, 1998, stating
they have reviewed the referenced petition and would require the elimination of the
individual sanitary sewer leads and have the developer extend the sanitary sewer to
the South side of the road. to service the individual lots. Also, the legal description
provided with the proposal is acceptable. The letter is signed by David Lear, Civil
Engineer.
We have a letter from the Inspection Department dated April 29, 1998, signed by
David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector, stating they have reviewed the
subject petition and have noted the following:
1) The westerly side yard abutting Wayne Road of the site for"Unit#1 under
"R4" district regulations should be 30 feet and not the 21 feet as shown. All
other shown building set-back yard spaces are shown conforming.
2) Parcel 09D12ala (035-99-0016-001) and parcel 09D12alb (035-99-0016-
002) need to be combined into one (1) parcel and I.D. number.
3) Need easements for public utility access and surface drainage.
4) The east side of site #8 is adjacent to a designated flood plain and needs to
be noted on the site plan.
5) This site of(8) site condominiums could be an (8) lot platted subdivision as
`ew the proposed site is unplatted land and meets the requirements of Ordinance
#543, section 4.04 and 4.05 for lot width and area.
We have a letter from the Department of Public Safety dated May 1, 1998 stating
they have reviewed the preliminary layout and grading plans for this petition and
have no objections. 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? Come forward and state your name and address.
Sam Baki, 36700 W. Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Want to tell us about this site condo development?
Mr. Baki: The reason we approached the site, it has a simplicity in the design due to the fact
that the site has frontage on two nice roads between Wayne & Curtis and has a
facing on Curtis of 855 feet, so we felt that coming in with a nice size lot which
will supersede the area the lots that are going at 90 to 140 which is R-4 zoning
We came in with the larger sizes which we felt this area would take that and in the
Bylaws we stated to have a square footage of to have a minimum for the ranch of
2200 and the colonial of 3400 sq ft. with brick 55% minimum and as I was told last
16119
week we can have an addendum to these bylaws a must that the brick be added to
first floor on all four sides. We can add that to the Bylaws and that was what our
intention was anyway and the only reason we came in with a site condo, it just
expedites the sales instead of going with a platting condition.
Mr. McCann: Any questions?
Mr. Piercecchi: I notice on the print the term bituminous. Is the sidewalk going to be asphalt?
Mr. Baki: The existing street is asphalt, so we have to match it. It is only the street that we
are finishing street. It's only 10 feet that we are finishing.
Mr. Nagy: Bituminous is another name for asphalt and it relates to the additional widening of
the street and not the sidewalk. It's in the area where you normally would have a
sidewalk but actually relates to the street widening.
Mr. Piercecchi: So the street is going to get bigger they are taking the curb out then.
Mr. Nagy: That's right. They'll add another 10' for a lane.
Mr. LaPine: John, the condition of the brick on the first floor is not in the deed here, now is that
a problem?
Mr. Nagy: It should be amended to include that but because it is included spelled out in the
conditioning, it will have to be before it can be (inaudible)
Mr. LaPine: I started reading this and it is all over my head . Does the City Attorney read this
and approve it, so if there are any problems can be correct?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly right.
Mr. McCann: Any questions?
Mr. Alanskas: I have just one. Naturally all of these are going to have fireplaces?
Mr. Baki: I believe so but...
Mr. Alanskas: The ones that do have, you are going to have brick on top and not metal coming
shoots coming out. It's a cheap way to put up a fireplace.
Mr. Baki: I don't know. We're going to be selling lots and not putting up buildings. We're
going to be selling lots.
Mr. Alanskas: John, isn't it code where they have to put brick on the fireplaces or can they put
those metal shoots up there?
16120
Mr. Nagy: They can put metal. Our code does not prohibit it. If you feel strongly that is the
purpose of the deed restriction and the Bylaws.
Mr. Alanskas: I'm just thinking, you said the lots are going to be between $90,000 and $135,000
and then you put a home on there you're going to have a half a million dollar home
there and I don't think to have the metal fireplace on top of the roof doesn't make
sense to me.
Mr. Nagy: You can have the chimneys restrictions put in there.
Mr. Alanskas: All right, I would like to see that put in there.
Mr. Piereccchi: Speaking of that, the chimneys in some subdivisions, they appear to be wood and
don't go all the way down to the ground. Are these going to go all the way down to
the ground?
Mr. Baki: If you guys call for the brick to go all; the way down to the ground, then it will
have to go all the way to the ground. It it's not brick siding then you can hang it up
over the ground because you don't have as much weight.
Mr. LaPine: He's selling off all of these lots, you buy one, I buy one, he buys one so
and we go out and get our individual builders, who responsibility will it be to
know what the restrictions are?
Mr. Nagy: They will be recorded and run with the land and because it is a site condominium
there will an condominium association in place and until there is 80% of the lots are
sold the builder or the proprietor of the site condominium will enforce them.
Mr. LaPine: So his will responsibility will be to see that each individual builder will build
at least to the minimum requirements and he can go beyond?
Mr. Nagy: Right. Then it will be turned over to the association.
Mr. LaPine: So the City doesn't have any way to police that, How would the Inspection
Department know that they are suppose to have such and such a thing?
Mr. Nagy: Because it now becomes a condition of our site plan approval and then we step
in now it is an ordinance for the City of Livonia so we would treat it as we would
any other ordinance violation.
Mr. LaPine: It seems to me it's going to be hard for somebody to keep track of what is going on.
But once he sells so many lots then it's no longer his responsibility then it's the
responsibility of the association.
16121
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#5-73-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 98-4-8-14 by Tri-West Development requesting approval
of the Master Deed bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium
development on property located at 18150 Wayne Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section
9, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan prepared by Landmark Engineering Company, as
received by the Planning Commission on April 21, 1998, is hereby
approved shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the westerly side yard
of"Unit 1" abutting Wayne Road shall be 30 feet, as required, in Section
4.04 of Zoning Ordinance 543;
2) That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the Subdivision
Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04 - 16.40 of the Livonia Code of
`ew Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance #543, Section 20.01 - 20.06 of the
ordinance, except for the fact that the following shall be incorporated:
- that the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick, on all
four sides, and the total amount of brick on each unit shall not be
less than 55%
- that the City of Livonia shall be granted any utility easements or
rights of access to utility easements
3) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be
full face 4 inch brick, no exception;
4) That the petitioner shall meet to the Engineering Department's satisfaction
the following requirements as outlined in the correspondence dated
April 28, 1998;
- that the individual sanitary sewer leads be eliminated and the
developer shall extend the sanitary sewer to the south side of the
road to service the individual lots.
16122
5) That an entrance marker application and a fully detailed Landscape Plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their
review and approval.
6) That the chimney construction be entirely of full face 4 inch brick, no
exceptions;
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 763rd Regular Meeting and
Public Hearings held on May 5, 1998 was adjourned at 1:00 A.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
c ') ' C. Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:, r�/ ( _
J4mes C. McCann, Chairman
/RW `