HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-04-30 14812
MINUTES OF THE 723rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 30, 1996 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
723rd Regular Meeting& Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with
approximately 45 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson William LaPine Robert Alanskas
James C. McCann Patricia Blomberg Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: R. Lee Morrow
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson 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
4110. 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. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-2-1-5 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#872-95, proposing
to rezone a portion of a parcel located on the southeast corner of Five Mile Road
and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 from C-2 to OS.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you mind giving us and the audience a brief
history as to what motivated the City Council to send this matter here
for this public hearing?
14813
Mr. Nagy: The Planning Commission, on its own motion, about one year ago
;to, initiated a similar petition for the adjoining property to the east at the
corner of Hubbard and Five Mile Road where you have the closed
Triple A building and as in the case with this property, that property
too was zoned in the C-2 zoning classification with the rear yard zoned
in the parking classification. The Planning Commission sought the
change of zoning on that property to bring the zoning into compliance
with the actual use of the property and in compliance with the Future
Land Use Plan. That petition was also supported at the Council level,
and that precipitated the Council to similarly ask the Planning
Commission to look at the adjoining property to the east where we also
have an office building used for legal offices. The zoning is C-2 so in
order to bring the property in conformance with the actual use of the
property, as well as consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, which
designates the area as office, the Council asked the Planning
Commission to move forward on a similar rezoning proposal on the
property that is before you.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. Any questions or comments? Since the City is
the petitioner here, we will go immediately to the audience to see if
anyone wishes to speak for or against this property. We will give the
first opportunity to the landowner and/or the tenant.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-2-1-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-54-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on April 30, 1996 on Petition 96-2-1-5 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #872-95, proposing to
rezone a portion of a parcel located on the southeast corner of Five Mile Road
and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 from C-2 to OS, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 96-2-1-5 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible with the existing use of
the subject property;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use
Plan designation of"Office" for the subject property;
r.►
14814
3) That the proposed change of zoning will remove spot zoning in the area;
and
4) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543,
as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-3-1-6 by
Beck Development Co. requesting to rezone property located on the east
side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and Grandon Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 from RUF, OS, C-1 and P to R-C.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
'_.. Mr. LaPine: John, is the house that is on the south property there, is that house
going to be demolished?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it will be.
Mr. LaPine: The parcel designated parking, to get to the parking they have to knock
down part of the wall. Is that what their proposal would be?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: The businesses in front of where the parking is now for the businesses,
how would the owners of the condo property, if it is approved, be able
to control the parking behind them if there is no wall behind their parcel
to separate them from the commercial properties? It is not required.
Mr. Nagy: I would suspect that at the time they would submit their detailed site
plan and landscape plan, that they would have a greenbelt in that area
and some planting of some kind and some screening to prevent
trespassing and to provide more privacy for the residential area.
14815
Mr. LaPine: The thing that I looked at when I was out there is the fact that if there
wasn't some way to control that, it would be easy for people parking
behind the commercial to use that as a driveway.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner with us this evening?
Earl LaFave, 30069 Wixom Road, Wixom, Michigan: I am the owner of that
development. I am here this evening on behalf of Beck Development to
propose the rezoning of that particular piece of property. We had met
with the Planning Department on several occasions. We listened to
what the Planning Commission had to say regarding frontage on a
major thoroughfare and their dislike of further strip centers and office
type buildings. There seems to be an excess amount of these type of
properties in the area. We look to propose a development of
moderately priced condos. They would be extensively landscaped. I
brought with me a rendering of our proposed construction. As you can
see on the rendering we are proposing a combination of wood and
brick exterior. The homes will be attached condominiums. They will
be approximately 1000 to 1200 sq. ft. They will be part of the
condominium association which will allow for the maintenance of
grounds, speaking to one of the Commissioner's concerns. We do have
detailed site plans, plans for completely buffering with a very heavy
landscaping and trees and also fencing to separate the particular area
property in question behind the commercial establishment. The
Ni` development would be a relatively small development in terms of
condominium projects. It would be high quality construction similar to
other development that we have built here in Livonia in past years. The
density that we are requesting is in compliance with the ordinance. We
have met the square footage requirements that the City requires and we
are asking this evening for your approval of the rezoning of this
property to the condominium complex.
Mr. Piercecchi: We understand you are interested in putting in 30 units?
Mr. LaFave: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, I understand that the little finger associated to the south of
the major bulk of the property is to be used for parking and open
space?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: I also understand with this piece of property our ordinance of 10 units
per acre is satisfied. Without this land, the remainder can only
accommodate 26 units. Is that correct?
14816
Mr. Nagy: I think that is correct.
r..
Mr. Piercecchi: Fellow Commissioners, if this finger was twice as long, I ask would the
builder then qualify for four more units on a piece of land that really
can only hold 26 units? I have nothing against condominiums, but Mr.
Chairman I think that this should go back for additional study. We are
putting in 30 units on a piece of land that can hold only 26. Like I said,
if that land went further south and doubled that finger, we would not
allow four more units would we?
Mr. Engebretson: I think you made a good point Mr. Piercecchi and we will hear all the
facts and make a proper determination as to whether or not to study it
further or to deal with it.
Mr. LaFave: Mr. Chairman, in the condominiums we have proposed open space.
The Commissioner just made a statement that is correct but we felt it
was imperative that in this development there be some open space.
This will be very isolated. We would provide open space. We are
looking for an area where the people that are living here will have open
space that will not necessarily be used as parking. The plan shows a
sufficient amount of parking for all 30 units, with using only a small
portion of that property. It will be heavily landscaped. It will be
private and it will be inaccessible to anyone other than residents of the
�`" condominiums. It is very important to us that the people that are living
here have something more than just a very small amount of land coming
into the home, that they have something that is a common amenity that
they would be able to share. We envision heavy plantings, heavy
landscaping, possibly some park bench type of arrangement with picnic
tables, something that they would be able to use on a seasonable basis
and still be part of the development. The density, I agree with the
Commissioner, would be less if we didn't have that but the
development would also be, I feel, of a lesser quality without the open
space for future residents.
Mr. Pierciecchi: I have no objection to open space. It is just to me you are trying to put
30 units in a 26 unit space. The ordinance does call for ten per acre
and you just about make that. You have 2.97 acres of land. I just
wanted to make that point Mr. Chairman. This could be setting a
precedent, and like I said I would recommend more study on it.
Mrs. Blomberg: I would like to ask you sir what the price range of these units would be.
Mr. LaFave: $80,000 to $90,000.
14817
Mrs. Blomberg: You mentioned sufficient parking. Does that mean one, two or perhaps
three parking spots per condo?
\..
Mr. LaFave: The ordinance is very clear that we have to allow for 2 1/2 parking
spots per home, and we meet that. We can exceed that if the need is
there by using a small portion of that property that we were talking
about behind the commercial area. We would be meeting the
requirements of the ordinance.
Mrs. Blomberg: So we do have 2 1/2 cars per unit.
Mr. LaPine: The parcel that is designated P, is that parcel owned by the individuals
that own the two stores in front?
Mr. LaFave: I purchased that property a while back. I am currently the owner of the
property.
Mr. LaPine: Who did you purchase it from, the fellows that own the two stores in
front?
Mr. LaFave: I believe they did own the stores.
Mr. LaPine: Did you ever consider buying out the two stores and making this whole
parcel a condo development?
Nifty
Mr. LaFave: It would not be financially practical. The stores are relatively new.
The price of doing that would be totally prohibitive to tear down those
commercial stores. With the value and cost of those stores, you would
not be able to even come close to breaking even.
Mr. LaPine: Do you own this property now or do you have a contingency to buy?
Mr. LaFave: I own the property free and clear.
Mr. Engebretson: How does this price that you mention, $80,000 to $90,000, how does
that compare to the price of the homes that abut this property?
Mr. LaFave: It is very comparable to the homes there. We did our research. We
went up and down, especially between Middlebelt and Merriman, and
then further back to the east, and we found the homes were selling in
the area of$80,000 to $100,000.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess I am talking more Oxbow and those streets rather than
Middlebelt.
14818
Mr. LaFave: Those homes would run about $100,000 or a little above that.
`4ft.• Mr. Engebretson: So you are somewhat less, 10% to 20% less.
Mr. LaFave: In the research we did we found there were many homeowners in this
particular area of Livonia that had approximately 1000 sq. ft. homes.
Their families were raised and they were empty nesters and/or single
professional, dual income professionals and they were looking for a
moderately priced home in this area.
Mr. Engebretson: Have you presented this plan to the immediate neighbors?
Mr. LaFave: At this time we haven't. I have done some indirect talking to different
neighbors in the area and up and down Middlebelt as far as the business
owners were concerned, and I talked to a couple of people that lived
across the street in the higher density development, and I didn't see any
objections from any of the people that I talked to.
Mr. Engebretson: You don't have to answer this but I am curious why you wouldn't have
talked to the people that are immediately affected. The ones that
would abut on Oxbow, why wouldn't you have spoken to them?
Mr. LaFave: At this time I didn't feel it would be appropriate to talk to them now. I
felt the concerns they would have mostly would be landscape screening
and the different views they would have. I would like to address that at
the time of site plan approval with landscaping, fencing or whatever
their concerns. I thought that would be the appropriate time.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the height of the top of the roof line?
Mr. LaFave: It would be approximately 30 feet. It would be a two-story building.
Mr. Engebretson: As I recall, Mr. LaPine and I were out there over the weekend, and my
recollection is there were a lot of single story homes to the rear of that
property. Is that the case?
Mr. LaFave: This is no taller than a normal two-story home. This will be no higher
than a normal two-story colonial home that is built in any part of
Livonia under the current ordinance right now. We would keep them
no higher than a normal residential home.
Mr. McCann: Can you, or maybe the staff can, give us an approximation from the
closest building proposed to the residential home?
Mr. Nagy: 250 feet from building wall to building wall.
14819
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, along that same line, the site line from these homes 250 feet
back, that wall isn't going to do much to disrupt any vision they may
have to the west. I am just wondering would it even affect the sunset
back there?
Mr. Nagy: It would be typical of a two-story colonial in relation to a one-story.
Not out of the ordinary because a residential condominium structure
for all intents and purposes would still appear to be like a single family
home.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this petition.
Ben Matusz, 29197 Grandon: I wear two hats today, as a resident and as President of the
Wilson Acres Homeowner's Association, which encompasses the area
between Joy Road and West Chicago and Inkster and Middlebelt. I
took the time to write down some concerns that the neighbors have
expressed to me and also my own concerns. I will just read them off.
I have a preliminary site plan one of the neighbors gave me. It indicates
that 130,000 sq. ft. are required, and that 129,220 are available, which
leaves a shortage of 1280 feet. The 200' by 100' piece in the back
seems to be unusable as far as we are concerned and is only included to
satisfy sq. ft. requirements. Drainage, which is already a problem to the
people on Oxbow, and myself as well, is already a problem and we are
concerned the development will only compound the problem. I believe
it borders on Wilson Drain immediately to the north and I don't know
what affect this project will have on that. By the preliminary plan the
parking doesn't seem to be adjacent to any of the parcels. Fully half of
the parking is at the back of the property and the developer indicates
there is going to be greenbelt back there, I believe, but it shows it to be
all parking. We are concerned about the lighting. Will it be excessive?
Will it be a nuisance to the neighboring parcel? Rubbish and garbage,
will there be dumpsters or scheduled pickups as we have in our
neighborhood. If there will be dumpsters, how many and where will
they be? It will probably contribute to the rat problem that exists in
that area now. They are concerned about the affect on Middlebelt
traffic. For lack of terminology I call it a non-standard ingress or
egress. Basically it is not a street but more or less a driveway into the
development. I don't know if there will be problems or not along
Middlebelt. I guess I would like to know how many of the units are
one bedroom and how many are two bedroom. They would only be
1000 sq. ft. or so. The two-story construction was brought up. I think
it is not compatible with the area. It would infringe on the privacy of
the adjacent residential parcel. It looks nice in the picture but if you
14820
look at this plan it appears to be, for lack of a better term, transient
housing. It just doesn't appear compatible for people to retire into or
to have equity buildup. There is no parking in front of your place. It
just doesn't lay well with me when you look at this site plan. Will any
of this be financed by any governmental units? Will low income be
allowed in there? Will it be subsidized by any governmental unit? Will
the City of Livonia offer any tax breaks or will they ask for them?
Finally, two more points. If it is rezoned Residential Condominium and
it turns out to be a flop, will they approach the Council again and want
to rezone it apartments? I don't believe anyone would want apartments
there, least of all us. Finally, I think OS would be preferable. Leave it
like it is. Put up some low density office buildings.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir you have raised a great many issues, and the vast majority of them
would be more appropriately addressed at the site plan process if the
zoning change were successful, but I would like to give you some
assurance that some of the issues you raised relative to drainage and
lighting and dumpsters, and parking and ingress and egress and those
kinds of issues, the ordinance is very clear as to what they can and can't
do. With this kind of development, it is the same as it is for a single
family more traditional kind of subdivision. With respect to the ratio of
one bedroom, two bedrooms and whether there is any government
subsidies involved, we will inquire about that later tonight, not that it
`.• necessarily has to do with the zoning issue but I would like to get that
question answered for you. I do want to give you some assurance that
the issues that you raised, I recognize many of them as certain areas do
need attention, and the City Engineering Department, for example, the
Inspection Department, other departments get involved in those issues
at site plan approval process time if the zoning is successful. I don't
want you to leave here tonight thinking we are not interested or
concerned about the points you raise, it is just really the wrong time
and we are the wrong people to do it because we don't have the
qualifications for example that the Engineering Department does. We
appreciate you coming and sharing your comments. If this does go on
to the City Council, I want to recommend to you that you find some
way to encapsulate your points a bit because while the Planning
Commission doesn't cut off anyone's time, we allow everyone their
first amendment right and they are allowed to speak their piece fully,
that is not necessarily the case, you will find yourself under a stopwatch
at the next time and I think you will go over their limit. Just a word to
the wise.
Dolores Gibson, 29149 Grandon: That is right behind the condos, and I am against it.
14821
Don Sheplow, 29161 Grenadine: Mr. Matusz alluded to it and I would like to mention the
amount of traffic coming in and out of there. They say it is 30 units
`44.1w with 2 1/2 cars allowed per unit. My concern is the traffic. We have a
lot of kids going up and down Middlebelt going either to the
elementary school or the junior high and, of course, there is also a
Seven-Eleven store which also brings a lot of traffic with the kids there.
A lot of the kids in the neighborhood go there. Our concern too is if
this is developed, the traffic coming in and the safety for the kids going
along that area. Also he brought up the point about the parking. He
said they would be beautifully landscaped. I think we all know the way
landscaping is done now. They level everything and take away all the
greenery and mature trees and put in little trees. Little trees take a long
time to grow up so for a long time we will have nothing but
condominiums to look at in this area. I don't think it is appropriate for
a single residential area.
Steve Smith, 29173 Grenadine: I have lived there for 11 years, and I would just like to
echo some of the sentiments of my neighbors. I think this development
is incompatible with the neighborhood because of the two-story
construction, because of the density of the development and because of
the price range of the development. It is already a step down from the
surrounding homes, and we don't want to see something like that
brought into our neighborhood. We want to keep our property values
right where they are. My last concern, and it may be inappropriate to
bring it up here, but it is definitely a concern to me as well as the other
neighbors, the piece of property directly north of there between the
drainage ditch and the backs of the houses on Grenadine, I think this is
probably going to end up being a snowball and not too long after this is
approved the people that own that will also seek rezoning and we are
going from a 30 unit complex there to maybe a 50 unit complex, and
that is something we don't want to see.
Dave Holman, 9019 Oxbow: I live directly behind this unit. I am voicing my objections
to it. I moved in here three years ago and I checked the zoning on that
property because I did not want to live behind communal housing. At
that time it was zoned single family and offices, and if it changes now it
is like the City is breaking its promise to me that I would not have to
live by that.
Richard Franklin, 9001 Oxbow: I bought in the area also for privacy and for the large
lots. My concern is mostly the drainage. We have a low line area
there. We have a lot of flooding in our yards now. There has always
been a problem with the drainage back in there. Also, I am in that
finger area which you so-called in the back parking area, so if
dumpsters come back in there, we already have a rat problem. Also,
14822
people coming in and out of there at all hours of the night, are their
lights going to shine right in my back door. Also, the second level
,`, housing, they are going to be just looking right down on us, etc. I am
strongly against the project also.
Richard Ewasek, 9023 Oxbow: Most of the concerns I have, already have been voiced.
David Kalt, 8963 Oxbow: Most of the people that have spoken here have voiced
concerns that would reflect what most of the neighbors, I believe, are
concerned about. I guess the bottom line is I am against the project,
and it seems like they are just trying to cram too much into a small
space, and really in reality, according to the zoning right now, the
property isn't big enough for what they are trying to do. If that gets
rezoned to suit the builder, I don't think it is good for the community
and our surrounding area right there.
Mr. McCann: Sir before you leave, there are certain things that we, as the Planning
Commission, deal with. We all live in Livonia and we have done this
many times so we have a little more insight into these type of projects.
One thing we should understand tonight, his site plan is not up.
Whether he has 30 units, 20 units, that is all going to come in later.
Mr. Piercecchi raised some very good concerns. Should that area off
to the south count towards the number of units in there because it is
really not part of the strip. There are only 2.97 acres so he may be over
right now so he wouldn't qualify for that, but that is not what we are
here for tonight. What we are here for tonight is to determine whether
or not R-C zoning is more appropriate or as appropriate as the current
OS zoning is. You understand under the current zoning, someone
could come in with a site plan today. They could come in with a two-
story office building. They could come in with a 25,000 sq. ft. office
building on that site. Their setbacks could be closer to the yard than
these proposed buildings are. You could be looking at a building that
could be open at seven o'clock in the morning with lights, cars, traffic
as opposed to this. With 25,000 sq. ft. you might get several hundred
people coming and going to work every day. This from someone who
lives in Livonia and has the same problems you do. To me it looks like
it is a lower type density. You are going from a possible two-story
office building of possibly 25,000 sq. ft. to something that is less of an
impact. Now this particular site plan, when that comes up, all these
issues of it is too close to us, it is too high, it is this or that, those issues
will come up. It becomes a question of whether or not this type of
zoning would be appropriate tonight. The question of it is too intense
or too dense doesn't make any sense to me because I know the current
zoning right now could have a heck of a lot more impact on traffic, on
noise, on lights, and on the neighbors than this proposal.
14823
Mr. Kalt: My general assumption would be that I don't see any of these large
*ow office buildings in this area that you are mentioning, and someone could
propose that as an office building for that space, but the commercial
buildings in that area are one-story buildings. They don't have 200
people working in them and when an office building closes at the end of
the day, those people go home. I don't have to go into my garden in
the evening after work and look up at someone's condominium and
have them looking down at me.
Mr. McCann: I can tell you examples where it has come into play and we have dealt
with it along Middlebelt. I think it is the Triple A building. There are
certain insurance buildings. There are different things that could come
into play. I have to feel that any of these things could be possible.
Mr. Kalt: I understand. I just want to voice my opinion that I am against the
project.
Mr. Engebretson: I appreciate your comments sir, and at the risk of offending Mr.
McCann, which I certainly don't intend to do, I do want to keep the
record straight and make the point that the vast majority, what I judge
to be about 60% of the land under consideration here, is zoned RUF,
the same as the abutting neighbors. It appears to me that maybe 20%
'soar or so is the strip along the back and a little tiny almost unusable strip of
office, but I think Mr. McCann is looking at the possibility that there
could be a petition come in and I could see where you could have read
the map that way but we want to be fair here. We want to keep the
record straight, and the fact of the matter is any landowner can always
petition the City any time to make whatever change they propose. That
doesn't mean they are going to get it but your comments are helpful. I
appreciate you coming down and I hope that we have helped to clear
the air.
Betsy Conway, 9024 Oxbow: I have the same objections many of my fellow residents do,
and I don't want the multiple housing. I would rather it remain as it is.
I agree if there is going to be something built, I would rather it be a
commercial building than multiple housing for all the reasons that were
mentioned. I am very definitely against this.
Mr. Engebretson: I just want to make sure I heard you say you would prefer a
commercial or an office building there?
Ms. Conway: I would like it not be changed to multiple housing.
r..
14824
Mr. Engebretson: But you would understand it is not likely that it would remain vacant
like that forever. A landowner pays taxes and has a right to use the
land.
Ms. Conway: I am very much against it becoming multiple housing.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand. I just wanted to make sure you understood.
Carol Dufour: I live right behind all this land here. I really don't want to say I am
against it. What kind of wall or fence are they going to put behind us if
they build this? There is nothing to keep them from looking into our
yards and telling us it is not clean enough or whatever.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you say you are on Oxbow?
Ms. Dufour: Yes we own a big parcel.
Mr. Engebretson: Does that wall stop before it goes down there?
Ms. Dufour: Yes we are still open there.
Mr. Engebretson: Without trying to put the cart before the horse here, if this zoning
change occurred or if the zoning existed to support this right now,
`... there would be a site plan approval process which would deal with
ingress and egress, and the layout of the buildings, the location of the
garages and the parking, dumpsters, etc.
Ms. Dufour: I know we have a real bad rat problem there now.
Mr. Engebretson: In addition to that it would deal with a wall.
Ms. Dufour: But there is no wall high enough.
Mr. Engebretson: There are different options available, walls, berms with plantings, etc.
All I am trying to say is those issues are real concerns and they are
dealt with in great detail at the site plan approval process, but for now
we will certainly take note of your concerns.
Stan Lesiak: I live on the corner of Oxbow and Minton, Lot 116. I have lived there
for 22 years and we have a tight neighborhood. We don't need a
neighborhood watch. Everybody watches everybody anyway. We
have a good party store, Mid-Joy Party Store. I am sure you have
heard of it. They commute to the whole neighborhood. He had a small
party store and he opened it up, built a real nice store facing Joy Road.
He treats the customers real good. He also had a video store which I
14825
think the whole neighborhood enjoys. Twenty-two years ago, maybe
not that long ago, we used to see pheasants up and down the
‘41,,, neighborhood. It was more open than it is right now, and I know you
can't stop progress. I remember Oxbow when it was a dirt road. We
waited for years and years. It finally got paved and I think everyone
appreciated it. I don't want to see two-story structures right smack in
that particular neighborhood. You can't stop progress. Someone
owns a piece of property, they are going to build something on it. If
you have been in the neighborhood you know on the corner of Joy
Road and Middlebelt there was a tobacco store where they sold
cigarettes, etc. It is vacant. We have office buildings that we thought
were really going to bring revenue into the neighborhood and help
everybody out. I am working my way towards Grenadine and
Westfield now. Half of those buildings are vacant. I don't know
exactly what you could put there. I would like to see it stay residential
so we could enjoy it. I know you don't have the acreage there but I
would like to see, nobody knows what will happen in the future, but I
would like to see something like a senior citizens' complex for the
seniors of Livonia. I don't want to see it get deteriorated by low
income. You have a Hardee's there that does a substantial amount of
business, and I remember the days you didn't have to go out in front of
your house and sweep up containers from french fries and half-eaten
hamburgers. We want it the way it used to be. Like we said we have a
*townice neighborhood. It is a mixed neighborhood. You have your old,
you have your young but everybody gets along. If you are going to do
something there, bring it to all of our attention where we can all get
something out of it.
Mr. Engebretson: You and Mr. Matusz are going to have to work on your speeches for
the next time around. Everyone else did fine. Is there anyone else
wishing to speak for or against this proposal. If not, we will give Mr.
LaFave an opportunity to address a couple of these issues and make
whatever comments he feels are important relative to the zoning issue.
What I would like to ask, are there any government subsidies involved
in what you plan to do?
Mr. LaFave: No. The entire development will be privately financed by myself. It is
planned to be a single family development although yes it is
condominiumized and yes it will be two stories. If I could speak to a
couple of the homeowner's concerns. I could do that first or if you
would like for me to take your questions first.
Mr. Engebretson: You have the floor.
14826
Mr. LaFave: The first comment that was repeated over and over would be the
impact on the neighbors to the east. We are proposing a very dense
planting and a very mature planting on the east property line. These
would be large trees that would be both deciduous as well as evergreen
type trees. They will not be potted trees. They will be moved in and
they will be large mature trees, as large as possible and still have them
moved in. The two story development that everybody speaks to would
be no higher than a normal two-story home. If we were to build a
single family home on any portion of the property that was residential,
such as the home that is there now, it would be no higher than a normal
two-story building. The homes would all be a minimum of two
bedrooms. They will not be the type of homes that would appeal to
transients. I am sure that is a concern to everybody. We expect it will
be moderately priced. We don't use the term low income or even the
term entry level income. I look at a home that is more in the median
price range in Livonia. Again, no subsidizing and no request of the
City of any type of assistance, tax abatements or any type of financial
assistance at all. The garbage would be handled the same as a single
family home. Whatever day was the normal pickup, trash containers
would be put out and those trash containers would be contained within
the home and not left outside. And if they were outside, they would be
in an enclosure attached to the building. There would be no dumpsters
unless that was a requirement of the City. The buyer profile that we
examined and have established for this area is one that has been built in
numerous locations in Livonia. They are generally the $80,000 to
$100,000 condominiums. In that price range, it is not possible to build
large square footage in excess of 1000 or 1200 square feet. The
garages would not be attached. The parking would be outside. To
answer another question, the lighting would be typical residential
lighting. We would not be proposing, again unless the City required it,
large street type of lights throughout the development so the lighting
that would be on the homes would be very similar to a single family
home because in essence these are single family homes although
attached and condominiums. Again, we feel our buyers are going to be
essentially what we see in a large part of Livonia from Joy Road to
West Chicago and Middlebelt and Merriman, those areas where the
home price points are approximately $80,000 to $100,000. We feel
this would be more of a lateral move for somebody who has decided to
stay in Livonia but also does not wish to have to maintain the exterior
of their homes. This will all be done by the condominium association.
If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Mr. LaPine: I just want to get something clear in my mind. There seems to be a
conflict here with what you told me and what I have in my notes. You
14827
did tell me that you own the P zoned parcel behind the commercial. Is
that correct?
`ow
Mr. LaFave: I have an option and a contract to buy that. Everything else from the
wall to the north is owned by me sir.
Mr. LaPine: I thought when I asked you do you own that parcel, that you said you
bought it a few years ago.
Mr. LaFave: Everything, including the house, is purchased sir.
Mr. LaPine: You don't own the parcel that is designated P?
Mr. LaFave: It is under contract.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is a very difficult decision here and I fully realize the site plan is not
being evaluated this evening. Nevertheless Mr. Chairman, based on the
comments we heard tonight and my own concerns over density, I think
action on this parcel of land requires additional study, and I will offer a
motion to deny.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Piercecchi, what further study will occur if we deny the motion?
Mr. Piercecchi: Number one, it is RUF right now.
Mr. Engebretson: If it is denied, then there is no further study by us. It will go on to the
Council.
Mr. Piercecchi: That doesn't mean anything. We can still study it. I realize the RUF
portion may never be developed in RUF but that doesn't mean we can't
develop that land so it is more compatible and handle the concerns of
our residents.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-3-1-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-55-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on April 30, 1996 on Petition 96-3-1-6 by Beck
Development Co. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and Grandon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 36 from RUF, OS, C-1 and P to R-C, the City Planning Commission
14828
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-3-1-6 be denied
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use
Plan which designates the subject land for low density residential land uses;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is not needed for the property to be
developed in a reasonable fashion; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the adjacent single
family residential uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-3-1-7 by
Robert Lewis (Winter Garden Bar) requesting to rezone property located on the
west side of Westmore Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 3, from R-1 to P.
N"" Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Robert Lewis, 31256 Country Ridge Circle, Farmington Hills: I am the co-owner of the
Winter Garden Bar& Grill at Seven Mile and Farmington Road. I have
been there about 25 years. Prior to that time my family owned the
business. We also own the carpet store that is attached to the building
on the northeast corner. Over the years our parking has declined in
that Seven Mile Road has been widened. At one time we were able to
parallel park in the front of the building on the Seven Mile side. Since
they widened the road we have a greenbelt in there and it has taken
away a great deal of our parking and also over on the west side of the
building, on the Farmington Road side, years ago we had additional
parking over there that has been taken away because of greenbelting
and the widening of Farmington Road. Behind the bar, on the north
side, we do have some parking up against the fence area. I own the
property north of the parking lot area, and I am requesting to remove
the dwelling that is there for additional parking. Right now I am just so
14829
short of parking there that I have customers that come in that have no
place to park so they are going on down the road to other
'Now establishments. Since that time we have D & G Heating in the area
north of our building. They take up a great deal of the parking.
Granted the people go in just to get a part for something for a short
period of time but in that time if I have a customer coming by and there
is no parking, I lose out on the customer. I am requesting a change in
the residential for that piece of property to parking.
Mr. LaPine: I have a number of questions. I realize in that area there is a parking
problem for all of the businesses. The barber shop across the street has
a problem because they took away all his parking in front of the
building where he used to park. The bakery shop, etc. When we were
out there checking the site, I am curious about one thing. Behind your
building there is a strip there now where different places have signs for
their parking and then there is a fence. The parking that we are talking
about that you want to develop is on the other side of the fence. I am
curious, how do the people know from the bar that parking is yours,
because the parking in front of that fence is yours? It has me confused.
How are they going to know how to get in there, number one, and
number two, how are they going to know it has to do with parking. I
understand, everybody along that strip has a real problem. I know the
City has approached the Allen Animal Hospital. They had a strip along
there the City wanted to buy and develop it into parking and assess
'tow some of the owners along there so they would have parking, but he
won't sell the parcel. I sympathize with you because if anything will
kill a business it's if there isn't enough parking. I am curious as to how
you are going to handle it. It is my understanding if you tear down the
house, you are not going to use all that parcel where the house is plus
that 15 foot strip along there. You just want that one strip and then
you are going to landscape the other portion. Is that what you are
planning on doing?
Mr. Lewis: No. I propose to take the home, the 35 feet, and develop it all into
parking.
Mr. LaPine: Then I was mislead.
Mr. Lewis: I don't know how you stop the other people. I just don't have enough
parking now for my own use.
Mr. LaPine: The parking lot that comes in off Seven Mile between your building
and the building to the west, is that community parking?
Mr. Lewis: That is all my parking.
Mr. LaPine: But a lot of people park there.
14830
Mr. Luis: Yes they use my parking. It is a no win situation as far as trying to
keep people out of there other than having some kind of security out
`. there.
Mr. LaPine: I think you should be commended for trying to alleviate your problem,
although when you alleviate your problem you are helping the other
people there too.
Mr. Piercecchi: Who owns that property north of you?
Mr. Lewis: I do sir.
Mr. Alanskas: You will have an additional 12 parking spaces by what you propose to
do?
Mr. Lewis: I think I can get two rows in there. I am looking at probably closer to
30.
Mr. Alanskas: Is your biggest problem after 6:00 p.m. or at all times of the day.
Mr. Lewis: All times of the day. I have a problem at lunch time, people coming in
can't find parking places. Some of the other businesses are in there
taking my parking.
Mr. Alanskas: Do the other businesses close at 5:00 p.m.?
Mr. Lewis: That is true.
Mr. Engebretson: I am also confused Mr. Nagy. The notes indicated, and we were
Nowrelying on these notes, it appears they are going for an additional 12
parking spaces and it was my impression they were going to have a few
parking spaces and a substantial landscaping to buffer the home further
to the north there. Now it sounds like it is two rows of parking plus an
aisle way and it sounds like a vast majority of that parcel will be
consumed with parking and come quite close to the neighbor to the
north eliminating much of an opportunity for buffering. How do you
see that based upon what you heard tonight?
Mr. Nagy: Our analysis is that the site would yield 12 parking spaces. The
petitioner did not present a site plan so we were left to determine with
the length of the property lot being 135 feet, parking spaces being 10' x
20', with access drive, that would yield about 12 parking spaces leaving
a little left over for landscaping. That was simply our estimate.
Mr. Engebretson: Your estimate makes total sense based on the geometry that we
described here. Maybe we are talking about different geometry. Can
you clarify that sir?
Mr. Lewis: I don't know how many spaces I would be able to get out of it. I
would pick up quite an additional amount of parking. I did talk to the
resident Mrs. Rose who is on the north side, and her concern was that
the property line was so close to her driveway that she wouldn't be able
to pull in her driveway if a fence were put up on the lot line, that she
14831
would be unable to open her car door and get out, and I assured here
that I would come in three feet or whatever was necessary to give her
`41.1. adequate space that was necessary to get a car in and out and have a
fence put up there.
Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like you have done this without any specific plan. It doesn't
sound to me like you have thought this through to the point where you
know exactly what you want to do. It makes it very difficult for the
neighbors to understand as well as the Planning Commission to
understand what you are planning to do when you can't even explain it
yourself, and you will forgive me if that turns out sounding harsh but
that is reality. While I understand this is a zoning issue and not a site
plan process, it is not atypical when going through the zoning process
to have a really rock solid understanding as to what the ultimate site
plan would look like so that a better judgment can be made relative to
whether or not the zoning is appropriate.
Mr. Lewis: I did go to Mr. Nagy and discuss it with him and tell him what I wanted
to do. At this point I don't know what type of fence I would have or
how many spaces. I really just wanted to have it approved and then go
from there.
Mr. Engebretson: You understand if this were approved, there would be a site plan
process that would follow?
Mr. Lewis: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, we are talking 50 feet here not 35 feet, aren't we?
Mr. Nagy: The area subject to the zoning change is 35 feet but there is an
undeveloped portion to the south of the area subject to the zoning
change that can be added to make it the full 50 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: Even with 50 feet though he couldn't get two rows of cars in there.
Mr. Nagy: No he needs 60 feet.
Laura Sokana, 19171 Westmore: I am definitely opposed to this petition. Mainly, it
couldn't happen on a better day, the last day of the month, but April is
the month of the young child and I have two very young children and
we are outside all day and I am a stay-at-home mom. I am just
concerned there is going to be so much traffic. Westmore has already
increased in traffic. There is so much traffic coming from bars and that
type of clientele on Westmore that really concerns me. As far as Mr.
Lewis I don't know if he plans to expand his bar. I drove by at 7:15
tonight and there were only five cars in the parking lot. I am a stay-at-
home mom. I do know that area quite well. I am home with my two
kids and I am just concerned about the balls going into the street and
no one paying attention. I do have some statistics that I would like to
14832
give to you from the Livonia Police Department, and just as an
example, a car traveling 25 to 30 m.p.h. that slams on its brakes and
Nowslides, it takes 40 feet to stop. A child cannot move that fast. I can't
move that fast. As we all know your response time is much slower
when you have a drink. That is my concern. I also do want to give
you another statistic from the Livonia Police Department that Livonia
averages 1000 injury traffic accidents ranging from bruises to fatalities
per year and 8 to 10 fatalities per year. That is my concern.
Mr. Engebrtson: Where do you live?
Ms. Sokona: Four houses north of Seven Mile on the west side of the street.
Mr. Engebretson: So you would be down three houses north if this passed.
Ms. Sokona: And with Mafaldi's Salon moving to the north side of the street at
Westmore and Seven Mile, that could add additional traffic. They are
not turning out on Seven Mile if they want to go towards Eight Mile.
Angel's Attic, she has a nice business and I love her store, but there is
additional traffic on Westmore.
Mr. Engebretson: I didn't notice if parking is restricted on Westmore. Is it?
Ms. Sokona: There are cars parking on Westmore.
Mr. Engebretson: So would it be your impression that since you live within a couple of
houses of this establishment, as Mr. Lewis has indicated there are times
when his lot just won't handle his patrons and some of them go to
1'" other establishments, do you sometimes have cars parking there?
Ms. Sokona: Yes. I have one more question. This may sound a little strange but are
you planning on selling your bar?
Mr. Engebretson: We will inquire about that.
Diane Mitchell, 19208 Westmore: I have the same concerns as far as the traffic. We
already have a high volume of traffic coming down the road as it is
especially when the traffic tends to back up at that intersection. Also,
being at home a lot I have driven out that area and I very rarely find the
parking lot has overflowed into the street. So maybe an evaluation
should be done as to the necessity of having more parking.
Donna Roshecki: My mother resides at 19124 Westmore. She is two houses north of
Seven Mile Road. I do agree with the other neighbors that this parking
lot, in the 34 years that my parents have lived there, I can honestly say
except for St. Patrick's Day, which is a big bar day, that parking lot is
never overflowing to my knowledge. I am in and out of my parents'
home at least three or four times a week. True, I do side with you on
the simple fact that you are probably limited to parking directly behind
the bar itself. However, the parking lot does extend quite a ways out.
14833
There are no brick walls at this time behind that parking lot so we see
everything. We already see everything and now the proposal that you
are asking is to expand that view, and that is an incredible eyesore. My
children play out there, with me of course. The parking, there is a
bakery right across the street. I have witnessed three people that work
over there that come now and park in front of my parents. However,
the problem I think belongs to them because they have ample parking
on that site at Seven Mile. I was there today. I marked it off myself.
People don't park maybe on the west side of the barber shop where
they should park over there. Instead they come down Westmore and
they park. However, those people parking there work across Seven
Mile Road. This in no way has anything to do with the patrons in the
bar or in that surrounding area, the carpet store. My parents own a
floor covering store. I know what it is like but if they want to do
business they will find a way to get there. There is a big parking lot
that is just north of the other bar that is over there. I don't know if you
in any way can take care of your patrons on that side. I am opposed to
it, maybe not 100% but at least 90%. I would need to see that you
were going to go with some type of a berm, some type of a brick wall
so my parents wouldn't be affected by bright lights in their front
windows.
Nancy Heath, 19114 Westmore: We are the first house east of the parking lot, where it is
now and where it is proposed to be extended. We are against the
parking lot being extended. Some of the reasons were a bigger parking
lot means more traffic and the way the people come out now, turning
out that driveway when they go to the north, their headlights do come
in our front window. We have had a couple of incidences with people
drinking too much and taking that corner sharp and coming up over our
lawn. Both of my kids' bedrooms are in front of the house so that is a
worry. I have a question. We had a gentleman come to our house a
couple of months ago inquiring that he was interested in buying the bar
and the house as a package deal, and he talked to a couple of neighbors
and what our feelings were making a parking lot maybe ten years down
the road. He would like to live in the house to save himself some
money while he ran the bar, and then years down the road maybe make
a parking lot. I am wondering if that is why Mr. Lewis doesn't have a
plan because I am wondering if he is trying to get this approved before
the sale of it and then the new owner can maybe come in and do
whatever he wants to do as far as the landscaping, etc. Our corner is a
congested corner. I don't see a problem with the bar parking but as
was said, on St. Patrick's Day, World's Series or playoff time for some
sports, yes cars do park down our street but right now that parking lot
is not filled every day. We have people from the bakery crossing Seven
Mile and parking there. Several employees from D & G Heating park
on our street and we have asked them if they could find elsewhere to
14834
park because we don't get our City services. Sometimes we don't get
our mail if they park too close. There are cars in front of my house
when the snowplows come. They can go down the middle of the street
but they can't get next to the curb, and they are out there six days a
week so Sundays we have to get out there ourselves. We don't see it
as a bar problem. We see it as these other businesses using our street
as a parking lot. Even if his parking lot was approved, would he be
letting them use his parking spaces or will that be for the bar only
because that wouldn't alleviate our problem as far as the other
businesses parking in front of our homes.
Mr. Engebretson: Did I understand you to say the prospective buyer was interested in
buying your house?
Ms. Heath: No, he was interested in buying the bar and the house as a package
deal. He had expressed to us he would live in the house to save himself
some money and then maybe ten years down the road make a parking
lot. We had questioned him as to what his plans were, whether the bar
was going to be extended or keep the same type of atmosphere, and he
said it would remain the same neighborhood bar, which is a pretty quiet
neighborhood bar. Of course, during the winter your windows are
closed but during the summer, it is open until 2:00 a.m. so you do hear
noises, a couple out there arguing once in a while, and if it is extended
it is going to bring that noise that much closer to our home. We are
against the parking lot.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is it legal for people working in one part of the City to park
their cars on a regular basis in front of someone's house in another part
of the City?
Mr. Nagy: It would all depend on whether it is public parking or not. If it is
available for the public, I think the public has the right to park there.
Mr. Engebretson: So I could come and park in front of your house every day and Mr.
McCann could come and pick me up and take me to wherever we are
going and you would have to put up with that.
Mr. Nagy: As much as I would not like that, I could not prevent it from
happening.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe I read somewhere recently, I don't know if it was a City
ordinance or a postal regulation, that cars that are blocking mail boxes
that are preventing mail from being delivered are subject to being
ticketed. Is that a local ordinance?
Mr. Nagy: That is a local ordinance.
Mr. Engebretson: So the next time call the Police Department.
Ms. Heath: I thought of two more things. We had called D & G because they have
six to seven employees that park there every day from until seven in the
14835
morning until eight or nine at night. Sometimes they leave their cars all
weekend. We asked why don't you park in the last row over at K-Mart
and be out of the way of the neighbors. I had called the City a couple
Nit" of times to ask what could be done. Can we have sign put up saying
"Residential Parking Only"because we can't even use the front of our
homes and they block our view from our driveways. We are right off
Seven Mile and by the time we see it is clear and we get to the end of
our driveway a car can be coming around Seven Mile Road. It just
makes for a congested corner but I had called the City and asked if
there was anything they could do like put up a sign saying "Residential
Parking" and they said it is a public street and there is nothing we can
do. That is all we asked. I called the Ordinance Department. They
referred me to the Police Department, to the Traffic Department, etc.
Mr. McCann: I understand what you are saying, and I am real familiar with this
gentleman's problems and another restaurant pattern just north of there
that has similar problems. I am familiar with D & G because I have
done business with them and they have no parking. It occurs to me
that the neighbors have said when they looked at the Winter Garden
Bar, which I have gone into over the years, generally it doesn't have a
parking problem. I think one of the things he is looking for is long-
term use to make it convenient for his customers. I am not sure this
will increase traffic but it might reduce the burden on the neighbors if
``. there was additional parking up there.
Ms. Heath: That was my point earlier, if he would allow them to park there. I can't
see him going through this expense to extend his parking lot and then
to let 10 to 15 other cars park there that are not even going to his
business.
Mr. McCann: I understand that except that people that are parking in his parking
spaces now or he is parking in their spaces, his customers could go
back there and the other businesses will have spaces of theirs available.
I don't see this increasing traffic. My understanding is you are
considering selling the business. Is that true sir?
Mr. Lewis: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: And that one of the reasons you are doing this, is to make it more
marketable.
Mr. Lewis: That is true. I have had several people inquire about the business and
the one main concern is the lack of parking. We just don't have the
parking facilities available.
Mr. McCann: Do you believe that will increase traffic?
14836
Mr. Lewis: I think it would alleviate a lot of the problems. I have the Dalley
Carpeting and they have several trucks there too, which takes up some
fir/ of my parking.
Mr. McCann: So your employees can park up there, which will leave more spots
closer in front?
Mr. Lewis: Sure.
Mr. McCann: One of the other things, Mr. Nagy, because we are going to change the
zoning to parking, he is going to have to have a brick wall to the north.
Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. McCann: There won't be any type of construction between that property and
Westmore?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. McCann: Have you looked at any planned design where you will feed them off
Westmore into that parking lot? How will they get to it?
Mr. Lewis: They will probably come in off Farmington Road or Seven Mile Road
or possibly Westmore.
Mr. McCann: Have you talked to your neighbors to the east as to doing this in
conjunction?
Mr. Lewis: I haven't recently but I have in the past suggested that if they would
help defray the cost of tearing the home down, that I would go along
with all of us using the additional parking but none of them want to pay
for tearing it down so if, in fact, this were approved, it would be my
cost to take it down.
Mr. McCann: But it would be open parking. There wouldn't be any signs there?
Mr. Lewis: I do that now. I spent several hundred dollars putting signs along the
fence stating the parking was for the Winter Garden Bar and Dalley
Carpeting. Nobody seems to abide by the signs
Mr. Alanskas: What is the limit of people you can have in your bar?
Mr. Lewis: Less than 100.
Mr. Alanskas: How many cars can you park there now?
Mr. Lewis: 28.
Mr. LaPine: The parcel of land going north and south next to Dalleys, that is City-
owned property, is it not?
Mr. Lewis: Yes it is.
14837
Mr. LaPine: Have you ever approached the City about buying that and putting
parking there?
Mr. Nagy: It is county property.
Mr. Lewis: That property at one times was ours and it was purchased for the
widening of the road.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, why would the county want to keep that property?
Wouldn't they be interested in selling it?
Mr. Lewis: It is kind of a greenbelt.
Mr. Nagy: The county wanted also to prevent ingress and egress turning
movements so close to the intersection.
Mr. LaPine: I can understand Mr. Lewis' dilemma because I happen to go to the
barber shop across the street and he doesn't have a parking problem.
He took care of his problem and I think the bakery is one of the big
problems because there is no parking out there and he has had people
parking on his property and he has had cars towed away twice for
parking on his property, so he has no problem. The bakery has the big
problem because they have trucks parked back there. The whole area
has a parking problem. There is no doubt about it. The solution would
be for the City to find a parcel there where they can demolish a building
and make it like they did on Plymouth Road. I do have one problem.
It is fine as long as you operate it. You operate a good establishment.
I have never heard of any problems there. If you sell the bar and we
approve this, I have really no worry as long as you are the owner of the
bar, but if a new owner comes in and buys that bar, he may be the
nicest guy in the world you might think but he might come in there and
run a different operation and it might not be as clean an operation as
you run, and that worries me. That is the one reason I am kind of
reluctant on this. I would like to see you sell the bar and see what the
new owner does, and maybe at that time we could look at the
possibility of rezoning this property. Otherwise if you were saying you
would be staying there for the next 15 to 20 years, I would be more
sympathetic to your position because I know you run a very clean bar.
I have lived in the neighborhood for 18 years and I have never seen a
problem at that location but that is a worry I have.
Mr. Engebretson: Ma'am, I would suggest you write to the Traffic Commission and ask
to get on their agenda and let them know some of your concerns. It
may be all right to park your car there during the day when someone is
at work but I have a feeling that there is something not okay about
parking your car and leaving it there over the weekend or over
extended periods of time especially if they are blocking your mailbox.
Ms. Heath: Thank you Mr. LaPine for bringing up that suggestion because there
are two things tonight. There are no plans to see the landscaping, how
14838
it is going to affect us on the east side of the road. Like you said, we
never had a problem with Mr. Lewis. If it is sold to a new owner, you
don't know what could happen. We have been there 16 years and not
`"' had a problem but with somebody else you could approve it and the
new owner could not do anything that Mr. Lewis is proposing. That is
one of our concerns.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Lewis, we are going to give you the last word.
Mr. Lewis: There is a big problem in the area. I don't know how to address it as
far as we have four businesses within this block area and there is just
not enough parking for all of us. I propose to take care of myself.
Nobody else is. That is one of the reasons why I want to extend it
because I own the property there. I would put up a fence or whatever
is required by the City according to code. If they wanted a berm there
and some trees, I certainly would be willing to take care of that.
Mr. Engebretson: No one questions your intent sir.
Mrs. Joseph Rose:I live just north of there. All my concerns have been pretty much
covered with the exception of I do understand he has no parking. I
don't understand if the house would be removed, in which direction the
cars would be parked. Would they be two deep with the back ends or
the front ends facing Seven Mile or facing sideways towards
Westmore?
Mr. Engebretson: Those issues haven't been settled ma'am.
New
Mrs. Rose: Of course, Mr. Nagy mentioned a screen and he mentioned a fence.
You need more than that to shield. Mr. Lewis' clientele is quite tame.
I think the ones on the other side would be using your parking spaces
as much or more than you. It is true they do park along Westmore, and
one day I did get out and asked a man if he would move his car before
my husband gets home because he would be very angry if he didn't
have his spot. I think that pretty much covers it all.
Mr. Alanskas: All we have heard tonight is they have parking problems in the
surrounding area. I think that possibly by tearing down that home and
putting in some parking, it would alleviate the problem. However, I
think it needs a little more study, and I would like to call for a tabling
resolution until June 4.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-3-1-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-56-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on April 30, 1996 on Petition 96-3-1-7 by Robert Lewis
(Winter Garden Bar) requesting to rezone property located on the west side of
14839
Westmore Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
3, from R-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table
Petition 96-3-1-7 until the meeting of June 4, 1996.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-2-2-8 by
RDS Detroit, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license for
an existing store located on the north side of Joy Road between Middlebelt
Road and Oxbow Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Inspection Department stating this existing
Rite Aid store is located within 500 feet of an existing S.D.M. licensed
*ft. facility. The proposed utilization of an S.D.M. License at the subject
site will require that the City Council waive the separation requirement
listed above. The proposed site is also within 400 feet of a church and
will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals granting
relief from the 400 ft. separation requirement.
We have also received a letter from Rodney C. Kropf, an attorney
representing Mid-Joy Party Store, stating the owner Vince Seman
wishes to express his opposition to the petition submitted by Rite Aid
Drugs because the neighborhood is already adequately served by SDM
licensees.
We have also received a letter from Bethel Missionary Assembly of
God stating they oppose Petition 96-2-2-8 by RDS Detroit, Inc. We
do not approve of your granting a license for the sale of packaged beer
and wine to Rite Aid Store which adjoins our property.
We have also received a petition submitted this evening signed by 27
individuals which states: Please be advised that we are residents of the
Joy-Middlebelt neighborhood and wish to go on record as opposed to
Petition No. 96-2-2-8 submitted by RDS Detroit, Inc. for a new SDM
license at Joy and Oxbow because the area is already properly served.
14840
Mr. Engebretson: I am curious Mr. Nagy if you can recall the track record of the Zoning
Board of Appeals dealing with churches that oppose liquor licenses
being granted when there is insufficient separation. Do they tend to
uphold the requirement or do they tend to grant the variances?
Mr. Nagy: I have to say I never really tracked it that closely. I don't have the
history to reply to that.
Mr. Engebretson: I have been here eight years and that is the first question you haven't
answered.
Mr. Nagy: The last one I do recall they did grant them relief was for the Farmer
Jack store located at Newburgh and Five Mile Road. That was granted
and that was the last one I recall.
Mrs. Blomberg: I have from my memory of being the map reader for 12 years of Zoning
Board cases, it seems to me that in the past, it seems that if a church
has a problem with it, they usually prefer to hold up the church.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner with us this evening?
The petitioner was not in attendance.
Mr. Engebretson: We will proceed with the public hearing. Is there anyone in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal?
Rodney Kropf: I represent Vince Seman who owns the Mid-Joy Party Store
immediately east of the proposed location. The request by the
petitioner is made with the knowledge that they built this store right
next to a church and right next to an existing SDM and SDD licensed
facility and right down the street another SDM at the Seven/Eleven.
They didn't come in here as innocent bystanders. They knew what they
were getting into. There were quite a few people here earlier that
signed the petition. They feel this neighborhood is adequately served.
There is no use Livonia getting urban blight like some of our major
cities where you have too many SDMs granted in the past. In fact, the
City of Detroit has stopped SDMs now without a really good valid
reason. I believe we should start this process in Livonia. I would urge
the Commission to deny this petition. It is not a certainty that this
major corporation would be granted and approved by our Livonia
Council or Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Kropft. We appreciate your coming in and sharing
your comments.
14841
Ben Matusz: I live on Grandon which is just north of Mid-Joy Party Store. I am
`, President of Wilson Acres Homeowners Association, and I would like
to make one additional comment. It seems to me that the owners of
Mid-Joy bought that property and tore down the dilapidated old
building and built a nice building knowing full well that they had this
license and there was one around the corner. I would think it was
improper for anyone to ask for an SDM in the neighborhood that close.
Rite-Aid is a drug store. Let it be a drug store. Mid-Joy is a party
store. Let it be a party store.
Linda Lesiak: I have been a resident for 22 years on the corner of Minton and
Oxbow. We watched Mid-Joy Party Store build up and take care of all
the residents in the neighborhood. We have a Mirage Party Store on
the other side of Joy Road on the other side of Harrison, Seven/Eleven
sells beer and wine and Farmer Jacks. I think we have enough liquor
going out. The owners of Mid-Joy are responsible. They check ID.
Not too many kids get out of there buying liquor. I think Rite Aid hires
young fly-by-night sales people and they are not going to be as
conscious of checking ID for the younger people and we don't need
these kids buying liquor.
Mr. Kropft: The petitioner was granted the right to carry on a drive-in service for
prescriptions and it is awfully hard to think you have to police a drive-
in like that so no alcoholic beverages will be sold on the QT by a young
person to another young person. That is something that is a problem.
It is hard to control the help sometimes.
Mr. Engebretson: I am glad you raised that problem because when they went through the
site plan approval process for this facility we did determine that the
drive-thru window would be for more than just picking up a
prescription. It could be used for picking up prescriptions and/or other
products and I think your point is totally valid.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-2-2-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-57-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on April 30, 1996 on Petition 96-2-2-8 by RDS Detroit,
Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license for an existing
store located on the north side of Joy Road between Middlebelt Road and
14842
Oxbow Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
°tow 96-2-2-8 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is
in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the Zoning Ordinance standards
as set forth in Section 11.03(1) and 11.03(2) with respect to the
requirement that there be a 500 foot separation between SDM licensed
establishments and a 400 foot separation between an SDM licensed
establishment and a church or school;
3) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a
balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with
similar type uses as is being proposed; and
4) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-2-2-9 by
RDS Detroit, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license for
an existing store located on the west side of Merriman Road between Five Mile
Road and Myrna Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Inspection Department stating this existing
Rite Aid store is located within 500 feet of an existing S.D.M. licensed
facility. The proposed utilization of an S.D.M. License at the subject
site will require that the City Council waive the separation requirement
listed above. The proposed site is also within 400 feet of a church and
r..
14843
will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals granting
relief from the 400 ft. separation requirement.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
The petitioner was not present.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for
or against this petition.
Bob Carris, 34651 Wood: I represent the Livonia Church of Christ immediately north. I
am a Deacon of the church and we had a meeting of our men's business
group and we discussed this. The church is the owner of the property
directly to the north but we have recently purchased the residence
immediately west of the party store, so we actually bound it on two
sides. We, as the previous people did, are concerned and do oppose
the license there since there are existing outlets within that distance.
We have had Showermans as a neighbor for a number of years and had
a very good relationship with them. Their store at the time was quite a
ways removed physically from where the Rite Aid store is, which is
actually right next door to our driveway so we do have concerns. The
owner had indicated to us when they built the store that they would put
some sort of a separation fence or wall, which they would work out
with us, between our property and theirs, which they have not done yet,
to keep people from walking across into our parking lot and dropping
debris and everything. So we do have a concern. Our actual long term
concern is if they were to be given a beer and wine license, that some
point in time they may come back and ask for an extension to serve
liquor, and our biggest concern is that at some point they may want to
become a 24-hour operation, which would allow people to buy liquor,
beer and wine 24 hours a day and coming onto either of our pieces of
property and leaving bottles and the usual type of problems that could
come. So we do express our concern about granting that license, and if
it is granted, the potential they may come back and ask for expansions
for liquor license and also to make their store a 24-hour operation. So
we do express that concern. As I said, we have been comfortable with
Showermans as a neighbor before and we have not had serious
problems ever with them but their physical store was located, there was
a large empty field between their facility and ours, which kind of
formed a natural barrier which discouraged people from wandering
over onto our property. On behalf of the church we would like to
express our concern about that.
Mr. Engebretson: As you heard earlier, if this petition were approved, it would need to
get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and you would
14844
certainly want to stay vigilant and participate in that meeting if it gets
to that point to make sure they understand your wishes.
Sam Sharkey: I am the owner of Showermans Fine Wine and Liquor, and I would like
to express our objection to the petitioner's request due to the following
reasons. We strongly believe there are no economic or social benefits
to the community or the surrounding businesses by granting the SDM
license to Rite Aid at that establishment. Also, there are already four
established existing SDM licensed establishments in the area within 400
feet and they properly serve the community. The third reason is it is
also in violation of the City ordinance which requires that any new
license has to be 500 feet from any existing license and 400 feet from a
church, which shows there is a church approximately 100-120 feet
away from the building, so that is a violation of the ordinance of the
City of Livonia. We urge you strongly to deny their request.
Jack Friez: I am the owner/operator of Merriman Drugs at 31320 Five Mile. I
would just like for the record that I am against the proposed petition
for the reasons that have been mentioned.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-2-2-9 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-58-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on April 30, 1996 on Petition 96-2-2-9 by RDS Detroit,
Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license for an existing
store located on the west side of Merriman Road between Five Mile Road and
Myrna Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
96-2-2-9 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is
in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the Zoning Ordinance standard
set forth in Section 11.03(1) with respect to the requirement that there be
at least a 500 foot separation between SDM licensed establishments and
the standard set forth in Section 11.03(2) with respect to the requirement
that there be at least a 400 foot separation between an SDM licensed
establishment and a church;
14845
3) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning
`.. Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a
balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with
similar type uses as is being proposed; and
4) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I should have brought this up before I suppose, but wasn't
there some discussion when we went through the site plan approval
process that Rite-Aid had no plans to seek a SDM or SDD license
given the fact that the Showermans's facility was expected to continue
in the building but if the Showerman's facility was abandoned, at that
time they would ask for this type of a license. Do you recall that?
Mr. Nagy: I have a similar type of recollection.
Mr. Engebretson: I know that the staff has given prior notice of this public hearing to the
petitioner. Can you explain why they wouldn't be here tonight?
Nor
Mr. Nagy: We checked the record earlier and they did receive notice. I can't
explain it.
Mr. Engebretson: I find it just amazing that they are not here.
Mr. Piercecchi: This seems to be a rehash of extending that site that we resolved about
a year ago. They wanted to remove the license, if I remember
correctly, from where Showerman's was to the end of that proposed
building site, and I think I pointed out at that location it would be less
than 100 feet from the church property, and it was denied on some of
those grounds. It really behooves me that these people try to play these
games with us.
Mr. Engebretson: We heard a number of things that night that appear to have changed.
Mr. Nagy, concerning Mr. Carris' comment relative to the unfinished
site plan work, it may be that the site plan work is still in process but
would you look into that to see if they have done a complete
compliance with all of the conditions of their approval, and I know if
they haven't, that you will step on them to accelerate the job so maybe
something good can come of this.
14846
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
Nowadopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-3-2-11 by
Open Door Christian Church requesting waiver use approval to utilize an
existing building located on the north side of Munger Avenue between
Middlebelt Road and Oporto Street in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 for the
Open Door Christian Church.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. Also in our file is
a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objection to this
proposal. However, a change in use group to A-4 requires the building
to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system or be divided with
fire reacted assemblies such that no fire area exceeds 12,000 square
feet. A fire protective signaling system (an interior alarm system) shall
also be provided. We have also received a letter from the Traffic
Bureau stating they have no objections to this petition provided that
four of the parking spaces nearest the west entrance be clearly marked
as handicap spaces. The extra footage required by a changing of the
parking spaces to handicap spaces would not diminish the total amount
of spaces below that which is required under the zoning ordinance.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department
stating the following problems or deficiencies were found: 1. Parking
and driveway areas need to be repaired, resealed and restriped. When
restriped, all parking spaces must be 10' x 20' and all barrier free
parking must be properly located.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Mark Freer, Pastor, Open Door Christian Church, 145 N. Center St., Northville: In
reference to the parking, one of the agreements upon the purchase of
the building was something that the Livonia Education Association had
reached with the City of Livonia that instead of building a wall along
the west edge of the property, they would resurface the lot. So upon
purchase of the building, we understood that we were to resurface the
lot. When we found out the requirements of the City, we resubmited
our drawing to reflect the 10 foot parking spaces and the 4
handicapped spaces, which will be done along with the resurfacing.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you want to address the Fire Marshal's letter? Are you in receipt
of a copy of that letter?
14847
Mr. Freer: I have a copy of the letter and we will be talking to the Fire Marshal to
comply.
`r..
Mr. Engebretson: So you are prepared to meet those requirements.
Mr. Freer: We are prepared to do that.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, are you satisfied that this waiver use, which normally brings
with it a site plan, given the minor changes that are going to be made,
are you satisfied that we have sufficient information to act on this
matter tonight?
Mr. Nagy: I am satisfied as long as our resolution incorporates those requirements
consistent with City reports.
Mr. Engebretson: The waiver use process usually involves drawings and all of these
issues that have been mentioned briefly having been addressed on the
drawings. I think there are relatively few issues on the table.
Mr. Freer: With the Fire Marshal do we need to resubmit the drawings?
Mr. Engebretson: You have to work it out with him. There should be an amendment
made.
Mr. Nagy: It is really an internal building code requirement and therefore the
matter should be more properly addressed with the Fire Marshal. I
think it would be sufficient for us to indicate that it is a condition of our
approval that the applicant will comply with all of the applicable
requirements of the City of Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: That apparently is clear to you?
Mr. Freer: Yes it is.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this proposed waiver use.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-3-2-11 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
14848
#4-59-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on Petition 96-3-2-11 by Open Door Christian Church
requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building located on the
north side of Munger Avenue between Middlebelt Road and Oporto Street in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 for the Open Door Christian Church, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
96-3-2-11 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 3-12-96 prepared by DEL-TEC which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to; and
2) That the parking lot shall be resurfaced and restriped as depicted on the
approved site plan.
3) That the plan meets all the applicable requirements of the City especially
those set forth by the Fire and Police Departments.
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 5.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and
`w,
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding
uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-3-2-12 by
Wendy Orluski requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building
located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Newburgh Road and
Horton Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 for a child day care center.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the Police
14849
Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Also in our
file is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating their division has no
objections to this petition. However, this division requires more
4.1" detailed plans of construction including, but not limited to, means of
egress, interior finish and division walls. State rules governing child
care facilities are more stringent, in part, than local building codes.
Therefore, this division requires plans be submitted for formal plan
review to Plan Review for Child Care, Michigan Dept. of Social
Services. Further, a copy of that plan review shall be submitted to this
division. We have also received a letter from the Inspection
Department stating the following deficiencies were found: 1. The
outside play area is deficient in size (5,000 sq. ft. required, 2600 sq. ft.
provided). 2. The fence depicted on the site plan does not indicate
height. Fences enclosing play area are required to be a minimum of 5
feet in height. 3. The floor plan submitted does not provide sufficient
detail to insure this building meets the minimum barrier free and
building code requirements for day care centers.
We have also received a letter that was unsigned which reads: Before
Petition 96-3-2-12 is granted someone better clean up the back yard of
pallets, broken boxes, broken bags,junk piles of broken cement, old
wood, old signs, have been there 4 years, papers, leaves, old broken
awnings, hundreds of cigarette butts and the wooden fence at the back
is falling apart. This mess belongs to Jamaican Pool & Spa. There is
``.• no place for kids to play and a very busy beer bar across the road. We
are too old to attend the hearing.
Mr. Engebretson: To my knowledge that is the first unsigned letter that we have received.
They do make a good point. The rear of that building is a mess. I
presume that the present owners have some obligations there. Even
though I don't like unsigned letters, I think the writer makes a good
point. Maybe we could send a copy of that letter to the Inspection
Department. If they have been there, they have seen it but I think some
positive action should be taken but we can't hold that against the
petitioner. Is the petitioner here?
Wendy Orluski, 29570 Jacquelyn: The first letter from Inspector Whitehead, I did speak
to him. He just wants a copy of whatever I submit to Lansing and also
their response. I have talked to him about that. The letter from Mr.
Woodcox, the outside area being deficient in size, I have filed an appeal
with the Zoning Board of Appeals and I am waiting to be put on their
agenda for either May or June. I am waiting to hear back from them.
We are going to be dealing mostly with newborns and infants so a lot
of our enrollment wouldn't be able to use the outside area anyway.
They won't be mobile enough to go outside. In terms of the fence, I
14850
explained to Mr. Woodcox that it would be a six-foot high privacy
fence and he agreed to that. Item number 3 about the minimum barrier
free, he wanted to make sure the door was at least 32 inches and all of
`low our doors are 36 inches so he was satisfied with that. In terms of the
unsigned letter, that back yard is going to be cleaned out by the current
tenant when he leaves and that is supposed to be May 5th. At that time
he will clean out the back yard area including the dumpster. That will
be removed.
Mr. Engebretson: I presume you will not need a dumpster.
Ms. Orluski: I will not need a dumpster. He will remove that.
Mr. Engebretson: That area and the fence will be removed.
Ms. Orluski: I am hoping for grass there. It needs to be something that is agreeable
to DSS, the Wayne County Health Department and the Livonia
Inspection Department.
Mr. Engebretson: There will be toys back there like swings for the children?
Ms. Orluski: I don't know about swings. I am trying to get things to make sure they
won't fall.
�,.. Mr. LaPine: Assume you get the variance from the 5,000 sq. ft., behind the building
it is all asphalt except for the area in the back where all the bags are.
Are you going to remove that asphalt?
Ms. Orluski: If the Building Department wants me to.
Mr. LaPine: I would think if the kids were to play out there, you would want them
on something else.
Ms. Orluski: That will be covered with something else, whatever is agreeable, be it
grass or sand, whatever is agreeable to all three.
Mr. LaPine: But the asphalt will be removed?
Ms. Orluski: If that is what the Building Department requires. I have been told that
grass can grow through that so if that is allowable. The surface will be
soft.
Mr. LaPine: My other question is I understand the only children that will be there
are going to be toddlers. Are you talking about three months old
babies to what age?
14851
Ms. Orluski: Starting from six weeks.
N""' Mr. LaPine: Six week up to what age?
Ms. Orluski: Well we are going to be licensed up to five years old but we are going
to try to limit our enrollment up to 2 1/2. We want to concentrate on
being a newborn and an infant size.
Mr. LaPine: How many children are you getting licensed for?
Ms. Orluski: Probably 45.
Mr. LaPine: Let's assume that a year from now you don't have enough toddler
business so you have to go into older children, do you have to get a
new license?
Ms. Orluski: Yes, we would have to be re-licensed by the DSS.
Mr. LaPine: I was always under the impression a kitchen was required.
Ms. Orluski: Only if you are going to be preparing lunches but with the children
being so small, they will be on bottles and baby food and the parents
will be providing that. Once they get a little older they are so picky
Nw about their snacks that the parents usually want to bring that in as well.
Mr. LaPine: But the bottles?
Ms. Orluski: There will be refrigerators and microwaves.
Mr. McCann: Right now you are licensed to five year olds. So if you decide to go to
3, 4, 5 year olds, you don't have to go back to Lansing. So if you
decide a year from now that babies are not your niche, that 3, 4 and 5
year olds are, we were all around when we amended the ordinance
regarding day care centers and you have 2600 feet and it is not in one
area. You have a 13 foot wide strip adjacent to the building. Is that
connected?
Ms. Orluski: It is all in one area. You get to it from one place. You just turn the
corner.
Mr. McCann: You are not going to have a separate area for kids riding their tricycles?
Two year olds need to run.
Ms. Orluski: Right, that would be the strip you are talking about.
14852
Mr. McCann: Now big?
Ms. Orluski: Honestly I don't know. The children wouldn't all be going out there at
one time anyway.
Mr. Nagy: It would be 13 to 20 feet.
Mr. McCann: When you have a nice day they all like to be out.
Ms. Orluski: They are going to be out but they wouldn't be out at the same time.
One group would go out for 45 minutes and then they would alternate.
We wouldn't send all the children out at one time.
Mr. McCann: I think your theory might work if you were limiting it to two year olds
but we can't limit it in that respect. My concern is maybe this site just
isn't big enough based on the outdoor requirements. If you decide you
want to sell this a year from now, we have no control over whoever
goes in there and the restrictions are still there on the children. Even if
you decided to go to the 3 to 5 year olds, you don't have enough space
for them. That is my biggest concern.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. McCann, if I recall correctly the state requirement for the play area
is 1500 sq. ft., and he is the author of what we call the McCann Day
'r► Care Center Ordinance. If you can look back when we developed that,
were we envisioning day care centers being this small? This is really
quite a small operation compared to some of the big child care
operations.
Mr. McCann: Forty-five kids is more than 1 1/2 classrooms of kids. It is kind of hard
to say. I feel with that many students if you have them there for eight
hours a day, I know my kids at four years old would spend the whole
day outside.
Mr. Engebretson: I have a couple of grandchildren that are two and three that attend a
day care center several times a week and they are outside some of the
time but they are not outside all the time.
Ms. Orluski: Plus the weather has to be right. When it is too cold or rainy they can't
go outside anyway.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. McCann I am closer to two year olds than you are now and two
year olds do run all the time. It sounds like you have dealt with all of
the official concerns that were raised in the letters. I don't know if Mr.
14853
McCann has been satisfied relative to the open space but I think you
certainly answered the questions well.
Mrs. Blomberg: I would just like to ask what the ratio of the children to help would be?
Ms. Orluski: If they are that young it would be 4 to 1. Once they get to 2 1/2 then it
can go higher 1 to 10 or 1 to 15.
Mr. LaPine: Do you now work for a day care or do you own a day care center?
Ms. Orluski: Right now I am office manager for a law firm. I did work at a day care
before and I have people who are going to be the directors and running
it for me.
Mr. LaPine: You are going to be there full time?
Ms. Orluski: Yes, when the time comes. I haven't quit my job yet.
Mr. LaPine: I can understand that. I guess the only other question I had, when I
was out there to check the location, it looks like there are three
separate buildings.
Ms. Orluski: There was at one time but right now it has been taken over by one.
'— Mr. LaPine: Are there petitions between rooms?
Ms. Orluski: No there are doorways but those will be removed. It will be separated
with probably doors to keep it quiet for the sleeping area.
Mr. LaPine: What will be the hours of the operation?
Ms. Orluski: From seven in the morning until 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Engebretson: What happens if you have a brother and sister there and they are two
years old and three years old and you decided that three years is going
to be your limit, then do you force that family to move to another
facility?
Ms. Orluski: No that would be their choice.
Mr. Engebretson: So the three and four year old could stay on.
Ms. Orluski: Yes. We want to be more family friendly and if it is easier for them to
do that we want to accommodate them. We are not going to force
them to leave.
14854
Mr. Engebretson: But your license would prevent you from being accommodating once
the older child passed five. Is that correct?
Ms. Orluski: They would be in kindergarten and going to elementary school anyway.
Mr. Engebretson: Probably conceivably coming occasionally to your day care center.
Ms. Orluski: Yes through the summer. Usually once they turn five they go to
kindergarten and first grade and they make other arrangements.
Mr. Piercecchi: You say your hours are going to die at 6:00 p.m. at night? What do
you do on those occasions when something happens and a parent can't
pick up that child?
Ms. Orluski: One of the teachers would stay. There is a fine, but someone would
stay with the child until the parent or grandparent or someone would
come for them.
Mr. Piercecchi: You fine the parents and somebody stays with the child.
Ms. Orluski: If something happens to the parent and they are in a car accident and
they would have to call a grandparent, we would stay until someone
came to get the child.
Mr. Engebretson: And I think what she said there is some penalty to the family. We will
�.11, now go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak on
this issue.
Mr. LaPine: I would just like to ask Mr. McCann, do you really see any real
problem here Jim?
Mr. McCann: Not with what her use is but if she changes her mind. If she stayed
with toddlers and infants it would probably be sufficient but if it
changes at all it wouldn't be.
Richard Stiglmaier, 18021 University, Laurel Park: I am co-owner of the Lake Pointe
Yacht Club which is directly across the street from the proposed day
care center. I am highly opposed to putting a day care center right
across the street from the busiest bar in Wayne County. I have some
drawings here. My main concern is the traffic situation. I have been at
Lake Pointe now with my partner for over 11 years and as everybody
knows traffic has gotten worse and worse on Ann Arbor Road. Right
now between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. it is horrendous,
especially from Newburgh to Ann Arbor Trail and Newburgh back to
14855
Plymouth Road. I am really concerned about the parents picking up
their kids between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. coming from
*Jr the east to the west to make a left hand turn into the day care center. It
doesn't give you much room to make that left hand turn especially if
they have 40 some people coming between 4:30 and 6:00 at night. I
have seen on Fridays where the traffic is backed up all the way to Ann
Arbor Trail. My customers leave between 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
They won't be able to get out. I have problems now. They have to
wait five to ten minutes to make a left hand turn. With parents trying
to pick their children up that is going to be chaos. It is going to bring a
lot of problem. We are trying to alleviate problems.
Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like you create a lot of traffic on your own down there. What
can we do about that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-3-2-12 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#4-60-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on April 30, 1996 on Petition 96-3-2-12 by Wendy
Orluski requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building located
on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Newburgh Road and Horton
'."" Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 for a child day care center, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
96-3-2-12 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is
in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 10.03(d) which specifies
a minimum size area of outdoor place space; and
3) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi
14856
NAYS: LaPine, Engebretson
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-3-2-13 by
the Kroger Co. requesting waiver use approval to construct an expansion of an
existing store located in the Livonia Plaza on the south side of Five Mile Road
between Bainbridge Avenue and Spanich Court in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 23.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their office has no
objection to the site plan as submitted. Also in our file is a letter from
the Inspection Department stating the following problems or
deficiencies were found: 1. Driveway and parking areas need to be
repaired, resealed and restriped. 2. Gates on the dumpster enclosures
are in need of repair.
Mr. Engebretson: is the petitioner here?
Rick Ragsdale: I am representing the Kroger Company. My business address is 17390
Laurel Park Drive: Kroger is a tenant in this shopping center. With me
is Barry Hudson of IBM Engineers and Planners. He did the drawings
for the landscaping and the site plan which you have in front of you.
Also with me is Mark Millerwise from the Kroger Engineering
Department, who, if this request is approved by the Commission and
the Council will be overseeing the expansion and remodeling of the
Kroger Company so he could be here to hear any of the objections.
(He displayed the site plan) Last month we petitioned to rezone the
land to the east of Spanich Court from RUF to P for parking, which
was approved by both the Commission in January and most recently by
City Council. What this would allow is for the expansion of the Kroger
store by approximately 14,150 square feet. The additional land for
parking will be used in order to comply with the parking ordinances.
The ordinance requires for an addition of this size, a net of 91 spaces.
This additional parking in the area that was recently rezoned plus
reworking some of the parking on site, will result in a net of the 91
spaces necessary. I have met with the Presidents of the neighborhood
associations to the south and east explaining our plan. From that we
designed this so it would be satisfactory to those residents. One of the
items we have is we have it heavily landscaped to the east side of the
14857
property, which would be the property that would be most adjacent to
the residents, both the existing residents to the south and east and also
- to the new residences that will be under construction to the east. We
designed the parking lot in the new area which will be built to
accommodate an extra greenbelt area approximately where the new
home would be built in that area,just east of the property. We also cut
off the parking going south on the new recently rezoned property to
provide for more greenbelt and landscape area. This was presented to
both the staff and the adjoining residents and this is something that the
residents did favor. Finally, in our proposal, as it relates to the
residents, there is a fence that would be proposed. In this case it would
be a chain link fence, which would go from the easterly boundary of the
property all the way down there, and that would serve as a barrier for
cut-thru residents. There was some concern with some of the residents
in the neighborhood that there would be a concern that some people
may be cutting through their yards to get to the shopping center. Also
the fence would be a good buffer to the future single family residences
that are going to be developed. The exterior architecture that we are
going to build with the building is going to keep with the same thing
that is currently in place. We are going to keep with the same type of
materials. The landscaping design is primarily to enhance the east side
of the new property area. We put more of the landscaping on the
buffer side between the residents and the new area to be for parking.
We think this is a better transitional period for those two. If there are
any specific questions regarding either the site plan or the particular
types of landscaping that are going to be used, Barry Hudson from
JBM would be here to answer those specific questions.
Mr. Piercecchi: I notice the petitioner wishes to have 9 foot wide parking spaces in the
rear of the shopping center. How many spaces are we talking about?
Why do you need 9 foot spaces? That parking is going to be for your
employees isn't it?
Mr. Ragsdale: Actually the current shopping center right now is underparked. I guess
this has been grandfathered into it. By converting some of these
parking spaces in the back to 9 foot spaces we are able to get additional
parking spaces which would be used for employees, which don't
require as much room.
Mr. Piercecchi: How many spaces are you talking about?
Mr. Ragsdale: You have Barry Hudson here to answer that.
Barry Hudson, Senior Planner with JBM Engineers: It picks up seven parking spaces.
Basically the ten foot parking spaces in the rear, what we are
r..
14858
suggesting is because there are no shopping cars in the back, it is
basically employee parking back there, it makes sense to restripe that to
narrower parking spaces. We could provide additional parking spaces
on the east side. That would reduce the landscape area so we felt that
was a nice compromise.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are still deficient aren't you even with going to 9 footers?
Mr. Hudson: Yes. What this does, because of the expansion we are required to have
an additional 91 parking spaces, and also we are losing 39 parking
spaces with the expansion that we will be removing. So we are actually
constructing 130 new parking spaces to increase the 91. The way your
ordinance is written a retail center requires one parking space for 150
sq. ft. However, with a retail center, when it is a larger shopping
center, requires one parking space for every 125 sq. ft., which in other
cities what we have come across is the opposite situation when you
have more stores together you have to share your parking.
Mr. Piercecchi: We worry about people's doors and that. That is why we go to the 10
foot. We like to protect people's cars. Can we assume that back area
will only be for your own people?
Mr. Hudson: When I have been out on the site there is very little parking in the rear.
Basically it will be employee parking in the back.
Mr. Engebretson: Will employees be directed to park in the back?
Mr. Ragsdale: We are not going to direct them. We are interested in providing the
most convenient and ample parking for our customers. That is
probably the biggest concern to us as a retailer, especially a food
retailer because of the nature of our business. In the peak hours, yes
we will encourage our employees to park away from where our
customers would park. Those peak hours and peak days may occur
seasonally, Christmas time, right before Easter, around Thanksgiving,
on some weekends. Yes we would encourage them to do that. We can
mandate them but there are other issues involved. We have a
bargaining unit that we have to honor their contracts but for the most
part we do get much cooperation from our employees. If it were to be
necessary, yes they would park in the back. I would suspect our
employees for the most part would park in some of this new parking
area over here because I think the most convenient spaces for our
customers will be and continue to be right in front of the store. We will
have a main entrance and a secondary. The customers will park, for the
most part, in front.
14859
Mr. Engebretson: The thing is if it is for employee parking where they come in and they
are going to be there for eight hours and if it is next to a co-worker's
car they are less likely to bang their door than having 9 footers out
front. I guess the way you describe the entrances and everything, I
guess it is unlikely that customers are going to park in the rear of that
store if the parking is all occupied out front because it would be very
difficult to get in and out of the store.
Mr. Ragsdale: We will lose business and that is something we don't want.
Mr. Alanskas: What is your busiest day?
Mr. Ragsdale: Saturday is number one, followed by Sunday, followed by Friday.
Mr. Alanskas: On Saturday with the new addition what would be the maximum
number of employees you would have working?
Mr. Ragsdale: Let's say from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.? They will come in shifts.
Mr. Alanskas: What would be the maximum number?
Mr. Ragsdale: I don't know. Right now the number of employees is 160.
Mr. Alanskas: At one time?
Mr. Ragsdale: No. Approximately 30.
Mr. Alanskas: How many can you park in the back?
Mr. Ragsdale: Over 100.
Mr. Alanskas: If a customer parked in your new parking area, how many feet would
they have to go to get to the front entrance roughly?
Mr. Ragsdale: Approximately from this entrance 75 feet.
Mr. Alanskas: I think it would behoove you to make sure your employees park either
in the back or the new parking area.
Mr. Ragsdale: I can't agree with you more.
Mrs. Blomberg: I frequent your store a lot, and I have never been there when the
parking lot was full. I really don't see any reason why the employees
can't park in that new parking because I think it is really unsafe to cross
that road with a grocery cart. I would like to see you have your
14860
employees park in the new parking or if they want to park in the back
fine but there is a lot of parking out there.
°r..
Mr. Ragsdale: That is what I said before. I would see this as employee parking.
Mrs. Blomberg: I would like it to be mandated. I think it would be safer for them
because they will not be pushing grocery carts. I will not park there
and that is a really big parking lot.
Mr. Ragsdale: We will say that the employees not park in the customer area. As a
frequent shopper there you know the customers will park around the
entrance. If there is not enough parking, it will hurt business. It will
drive the customers away because unlike a movie theater, a bowling
alley, where people are set on going there, they will park where they
can. At a grocery store, one of the things we sell is convenience. This
convenient parking is all part of our business. I agree with what you
are saying.
Mrs. Blomberg: Is there some way you can have the employees park in the new area?
Mr. Ragsdale: We will recommend it and ask them to do that.
Mrs. Blomberg: I really don't want to take my grocery cart across that road and have to
watch the traffic at the same time. Maybe I am unusual but I just want
`" to get to my car without crossing a road.
Mr. Ragsdale: I agree. When we first looked at this, one of the things that came back
loud and clear from not only the staff but also the residents, they did
not want us to relocate the road. That made sense to us because there
is ample parking in front even with this addition. Our size will be
increased by approximately 25%. We are not going to get a 25%
increase in customers. I wish we would.
Mr. LaPine: Along the new parking area, are there any lights along there?
Mr. Ragesdale: Yes. We will be installing some lights there and the type of lights will
be shining down on the lot not in back yards.
Mr. LaPine: From my driving around the City I find that most of the time at most
stores when there is parking behind the stores I don't think anybody
ever uses it.
Mr. Engebretson: At the risk of being a dead horse, understand I don't want to, you
understand you have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a
variance for those 9 foot spaces in the back of the store. Do you
r..
14861
understand that? We don't have the authority to grant that to you and
since you are changing what is there, you will need to do that.
Mr. Ragsdale: We will do whatever is necessary. The reason for us going to these 9
foot spaces in the back is to preserve more of our landscaping.
Mr. Engebretson: We understand that. Mr. Nagy, correct me if I am wrong.
Mr. Nagy: You are right. He is aware he has to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson: When you go to the Zoning Board I want you to be on record here
that what you take to the Zoning Board will be exactly the same set of
documentation that we are dealing with here tonight, and that you will
be proposing nine foot spaces to the rear of the store and no place else.
Mr. Ragsdale: That is exactly how we want it, 10 foot everywhere except in the rear.
Mr. LaPine: John, can't he instead of getting a waiver of the 9 foot spaces in the
back, which I think aren't going to be used anyway, can't he just leave
them at 10 feet and ask for a deficiency in parking?
Mr. Nagy: Sure.
N" Mr. Engebretson: Are you proposing that these spaces be double striped?
Mr. Ragsdale: In concert with the expansion, this parking lot here is going to be
totally redone. There are some areas where the base was deficient.
There are engineering tests being done right now. It is going to be
totally done in overlay. Obviously we will build a new parking lot here.
Parts of the parking lot to the west have been done by the landlord in
recent years. Those areas will be restriped.
Mr. Engebretson: We have been double striping everything lately. We even have an
ordinance in process to require that but for the past year or two we
have been asking people to do that and made it part of the condition of
approval. You understand the reason why. It centers the car more in
the parking space and it less likely to cause damage to the doors so we
are interested in two things, ten foot wide parking spaces, double
striping. Since you are redoing the lot, it will cost a little bit more but
you end up with a lot better product and you don't lose a single parking
space.
Mr. Ragsdale: I wasn't concerned about the cost of double striping. What we have is
single striping now.
14862
Mr. Engebretson: But you are going to redo the surface so double stripe it.
Mr. Ragsdale: I appreciate the feedback from the Commission.
Mr. Hudson: I would like one clarification. Would it be the Commission's feeling
that we are better to ask for a deficiency in parking rather than going to
9 foot spaces?
Mr. LaPine: From my point of view, because that parking in the back isn't going to
be utilized, why change the ten to nine when you can just ask for a
deficiency. That is my personal opinion. It just makes sense.
Mr. Ragsdale: Than I would like to restate what I previously stated. When we go to
the Zoning Board of Appeals this area will be the same but the back
will be going back to 10 foot spaces and we will do the restriping.
Mr. Engebretson: If you were to make that change, you would have met the spirit of your
agreement.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-3-2-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-61-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on April 30, 1996 on Petition 96-3-2-13 by the Kroger
Co. requesting waiver use approval to construct an expansion of an existing
store located in the Livonia Plaza on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Bainbridge Avenue and Spanich Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 96-3-2-13 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking spaces and to the following
additional conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 4-3-96 prepared by JBM Engineers and Planners
which is hereby approved shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan dated 4-3-96 prepared by JBM Engineers and
Planners which is hereby approved shall be installed prior to final inspection
and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and
14863
3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 10-6-95
prepared by J. Howard Nudell Architects, Inc. which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
r..
4) That the dumpster enclosure shall be repaired.
5) That the parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped.
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 Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
No.. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Cornell Sign Company, on behalf of Nicholas Plaza Shopping
Center, requesting approval for signage for the property located at 13820
Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Miller: This shopping center is located on the southeast corner of Schoolcraft
and Merriman. By virtue of the ordinance they are allowed one wall
sign for each unit, so they are allowed two wall signs and both signs
cannot be more than 148 sq. ft. in total. They are proposing in excess
of that. Therefore, they had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to
get a variance for their sign package. Before you tonight, based on that
variance, is a conforming sign package. On the east unit on the Royal
Coney Island Restaurant they are proposing a 67 sq. ft. wall sign.
Towards the west there are two wall signs, one is"Blimpie Subs &
Salads", which would be 32 sq. ft. in size and "Nicholas Liquor", which
14864
would be 30 sq. ft in size. The total sign package for the wall is 129
sq. ft. and three wall signs. They are also proposing a 30 sq. ft. ground
sign with each tenant's name located on it. This is a conforming
1`"' ground sign and it will be located on the corner of Schoolcraft and
Merriman, set back at ten feet. Based on the variance, it is a
conforming sign package.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott, the border around the ground sign and the definition of the three
signs there, appear to me to now be green. Is it green?
Mr. Miller: It is black.
Mr. Engebretson: Technically this was an item that was tabled at the April 2 meeting
because the applicant was in attendance at the Zoning Board and
wasn't able to appear here before we adjourned. We need a motion to
remove it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-62-96 RESOLVED that, the Sign Permit Application by Cornell Sign Company, on
behalf of Nicholas Plaza Shopping Center, requesting approval for signage for
the property located at 13820 Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
26, be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Mark Johnson of Cornell Sign Company, 1047 Round Lake Road, White Lake, Michigan:
Mr. Engebretson: Would you just recap briefly the changes that you made from our
original look at this plan to what we have before us tonight.
Mr. Johnson: The initial review by this Commission on the sign plan did include a
wall sign for the west elevation, which was denied by the Zoning Board
of Appeals. That has brought down the total square footage and
number of signs more in conformance and they have approved sizes as
stated on the plan. That hasn't changed. The color concept has
changed throughout along with letter style on one sign in particular,
namely"Blimpie Subs & Salads"because it is a national franchise and
does have to be reproduced in its franchise colors for the most part,
without any type of change whatsoever. The"Nicholas Liquor' sign
returns to its original sign. With Blimpie Subs & Salads it was a much
14865
more of a contrast than was needed and the size of the letters were then
changed to red to more accommodate and be more aesthetically
pleasing with the base color. Also the wall sign for the restaurant, that
letter style was changed to kind of tie in more with the liquor typeset so
when you look at the entire building it looks like a sign program, so to
speak, and flows a little bit better, versus having a contrast. Lastly, on
the ground sign, the restaurant portion on the sign, that color was
changed from what was originally dark blue, which created a vast
contrast, almost too much, to the red and also tying in with the same
letter style that is on the building and also the framing on the ground
sign, which actually is commonly referred to as duranodic bronze or
dark metallic gray.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here? What are the hours of the restaurant going to
be?
Mike Shango, 7454 Timbers Edge Blvd., West Bloomfield: Maybe 24 hours or six or
seven in the morning to two in the morning.
Mr. Alanskas: Seven days a week?
Mr. Shango: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: What will be the hours of the party store?
sow
Mr. Shango: That is going to depend. For sure I will have food at Blimpies seven
o'clock in the morning to midnight or two o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Johnson, you did a good job in tuning up that sign to take out
some of the things we found so objectionable, the colors, the style of
the letters, etc. and we want to tell you we appreciate that cooperation.
Mr. Alanskas: We had discussed the signs being off one hour after the operations
close. With your monument sign, how will you turn that sign off?
Would you have a timer on it?
Mr. Shango: I think I am going to put a timer in.
Mr. Johnson: I believe the sign circuits are presently controlled by a timer.
Mr. Alanskas: You do know you have to have them off an hour after you close? If
you are open 24 hours, of course you wouldn't be closing, but if you
are not open 24 hours a day, you have to shut them off one hour after
you close.
14866
Mr. Shango: Wish me good luck to be open 24 hours. Here in Livonia there is a lot
of construction and everybody wants to eat.
'to"' Mr. Engebretson: John, what would we do about that if the restaurant is open 24 hours a
day? Clearly the restaurant sign would be illuminated 24 hours a day,
but would we ask them to extinguish the Blimpie's and the liquor sign?
Mr. Nagy: I think in this case that should not be a requirement or condition. I
think a half lit sign is worse.
Mr. Johnson: Actually it would be structurally impossible to do that. I have one last
request. I understand our next process is to go before the City Council.
In contacting the City Council, I know their cutoff date for their next
available meeting is this coming Monday. I do not know if there is any
type of waiting period or anything in connection with the resolution, if
we have a passing one here, that would prevent us from getting on that
meeting. Mr. Shango is hoping to open within the next couple of
weeks.
Mr. Engebretson: We do have a seven day rule where it takes seven days for the act to
become effective assuming it is passed. If you request that seven days
be waived, then it is possible that if you get a majority vote that the
resolution can be effective immediately. I interpret your question as
being a request to waive that seven day waiting period.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-63-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Cornell Sign Company,
on behalf of Nicholas Plaza Shopping Center, requesting approval for
signage for the property located at 13820 Merriman Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 26, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Cornell Sign Company, as received by
the Planning Commission on April 12, 1996, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2) That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after the
uses in the shopping center close;
3) That window signage for the center shall be limited to what is
permitted by Section 18.50D Permitted Signs, subheading (g)
"Window Signage".
14867
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-64-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Sign
Permit Application by Cornell Sign Company, on behalf of Nicholas Plaza
Shopping Center, requesting approval for signage for the property located
at 13820 Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for
Sunset Subdivision proposed to be located south of Eight Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Engebretson: John, do we have any information here?
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department recommending
approval, as well as the City Clerk's office stating all financial
obligations have been complied with. You may recall it is a very small
ten lot subdivision east of Merriman Road. The subdivision takes it
name from the street that extended into the area, Sunset, and there are
lots only on one side. It is a very difficult site to develop and
everything has been constructed to the satisfaction of our Engineering
Department.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-65-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Sunset Subdivision proposed to be located south of Eight Mile
Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 2 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat complies in every respect with the Preliminary Plat;
2) That approval of the Final Plat is recommended by the City Engineer; and
14868
3) That all financial requirements imposed upon the proprietor by the City
have been taken care of according to the City Clerk.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Motion by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #661-95, to hold a
public hearing on whether property located on the southwest corner of Seven
Mile Road and Merriman Road known as George's Livonia Gardens and the
parcel on Seven Mile Road just west of Bicentennial Park known as Glenda's
Market should be rezoned to a more appropriate commercial zoning
classification.
Mr. Engebretson: This is direction from the City Council to set a public hearing to deal
with these two matters. Is there anyone wishing to speak to these two
matters? Seeing none, I will ask for a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-66-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution#661-95, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543,
'41 Mr the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby
establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not
to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and
Merriman Road known as George's Livonia Gardens and the parcel on
Seven Mile Road just west of Bicentennial Park known as Glenda's Market
to a more appropriate commercial zoning classification.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 722nd Regular Meeting held on April 2, 1996.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#4-67-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 722nd Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on April 2, 1996 are approved.
14869
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Morrow
ABSTAIN: Blomberg
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-4-8-5 by
Building Design Associates, Inc. requesting approval for all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a service station on property located at 29231 Eight Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This is located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and
Middlebelt. Right now it consists of a small station located in the
middle of the site underneath a canopy, What the petitioner is
proposing to do is to demolish the existing station and construct a new
station further back on the site. The new station would be hexagon in
shape and would be one story in height. It would be 2,916 sq. ft. in
size. It would be approximately 110 feet from Middlebelt Road and
— 145 feet from Eight Mile Road. There is also an existing car wash on
the site. With this new station located here, they were able to redesign
the stack-up area for the car wash behind the new station and into the
car wash. You will be able to enter the new stacking area by the south
drive from Middlebelt Road. There is enough space in the new
stacking area for 15 cars. The trash dumpster area would be located
between the east property line and the new service station. Parking for
the site, they are required to have 9 spaces. The site shows 13 so they
meet the parking requirement. Landscaping, any landscaping that the
service station would take over for the stacking area, all that
landscaping would be replanted in either the existing landscaping areas
or new proposed landscaping areas. Landscaping for the site, they are
required to have 15% and the site plan shows 22% so they are over in
landscaping. As suggested by the Planning Commission at the study
meeting that the service station should be brick, the petitioner has
revised their elevation plans and submitted them tonight, and I do have
some for the file. It will be all brick with a shingle roof with the
entrance area of the service station a glass type entrance area.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Miller, if someone just wants to come in and use the convenience
store, where do they park?
14870
Mr. Miller pointed the area out on the plan.
Mr. LaPine: How many parking spaces are there?
Mr. Miller: A total of 13.
Mr. LaPine: The one in the front, I can't see anyone parking there to go to the
convenience store.
Mr. Miller: They are only required to have nine.
Mr. McCann: Were there some photographs to be presented tonight of the neon
lighting?
Mr. Engebretson: Also a cut of the material if we could arrange that.
Petitioner: We couldn't get a cut of the fixture itself but this is what it would look
like at night. (He presented photographs)
Mr. McCann: Are you redoing the pump area?
Petitioner: The pump area, the canopy, all the approaches, everything is going to
stay the same. All we are basically doing is moving the existing car
NN"'` wash area stacking right through here, moving that back and creating a
new retaining wall, taking all landscaping and putting it along the back,
utilizing everything that is existing on the site now and really not adding
anything new. Where these columns are now, we will put a little island
around them to protect them and there will be four parking spaces
underneath the canopy as well.
Mr. McCann: One of the other stations that we dealt with in Livonia basically took
the steel pillars and bricked them in with the same color brick that is on
the building. Will you be able to do that? It really gave a nice
appearance to the pump area and it matched the building.
Petitioner: I don't see a problem doing that. If that is going to be a requirement, I
am sure we can handle that.
Mr. McCann: This neon lighting
Petitioner: It is actually a fluorescent tube.
Mr. McCann: My concern is that the blue covering is opaque, correct?
14871
Petitioner: It is solid. It just lights up and down. It is not illuminated.
law
Mr. McCann: Is that different than the one in the photograph because it looks like the
blue is illuminated.
Petitioner: It is not illuminated.
Mr. Alanskas: I think what you have is a good looking building. My question is any
product that you sell inside that store, will only be sold on the inside of
the building and not from the outside? You will not have storage on
the outside of the building?
Petitioner: That is why we are building a larger building.
Mr. Alanskas: So everything you sell will be sold on the inside of the building and
nothing will be displayed on the outside of the building?
Petitioner: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: I am concerned about the color. Is this a new color scheme for your
stations around the country?
Petitioner: Right. This will be the brick we will be using on the outside of the
building.
Mr. Engebretson: I think it is very attractive. I am concerned about the yellow. As a
youngster I pumped a lot of Mobil gas and now that I have reached this
stage of my life I am still pumping Mobil gas and I know their colors
very well. I wore them for a long time. This yellow just appears, and I
don't mean this with disrespect, but it appears gaudy in these pictures,
and I am just really concerned about that. We have a couple of places
in Livonia now that look like the entrance to Tijuana and this happens
to be an entrance to our City and I just hate to give that impression.
Are we going to see every Mobil station around the country looking
like this sooner or later?
Steve Ray, Patterson Construction Company: We are the construction managers, the
outsource construction management company for Mobil Oil
Corporation. I just want to address a couple of concerns. First of all,
the band lighting is not only meant to be accent lighting, as represented
in the picture, but if you look in the underneath side is a white light that
is transmitted throughout that. The concept of the lighting, it appears
to be teal in color in color but it provides a safety feature for the
building around the perimeter, which it is installed around the
perimeter. With that light it not only shines up, it shines down and
14872
provides a safety measure for the customers of the facility. Mr.
Chairman, to address your concerns regarding Mobil color schemes and
whether or not this is going to be a national program, the answer quite
frankly is yes. This is a national concept that Mobil is wanting to
introduce to its loyal customers as well as its new customers as we
enter into the 90s here and the year 2000. The concept is decoupling.
What that means as far as Mobil is concerned, they want to separate
themselves from just being a gasoline station to being a destination
facility, not only to service you from the standpoint of gasoline but also
provide you with your destination store items such as milk, bread,
convenience items, dinner items such as hot dogs, nachos, things of that
nature. Given today's environment when things are kind of hectic and
people are on the move constantly, Mobil wants to provide that service
and that opportunity to the customers. To reach that goal and that
objective, they realize that they have loyal customers like yourself that
have been a part of their organization, the red, white and blue, for years
and they believe they are going to still maintain that, but they also want
to separate themselves, and this whole concept has been marketed off
different stores such as Circle K, Seven/Eleven, etc. Some of these
convenience store locations happen to provide gasoline for their
customers as well, and that is what Mobil wants to provide to their
customers here in Livonia and as well as the rest of the country.
Mr. Engebretson: So do I understand the Mobil gas part of the operation will stay with
the red, white and blue colors and this On-The-Run store, which I
understand was the name of the convenience store here, will utilize
these new colors?
Mr. Ray: That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Engebretson: You really think they look nice?
Mr. Ray: I think the pictures my wife and I took, it was a rainy night.
Mr. Engebretson: Where were the pictures taken?
Mr. Ray: We have several locations around the area, and I would invite anyone
of you to stop by and see it for yourself Ann Arbor and Sheldon
Roads has the color scheme with the band lighting. We have one at
Twelve Mile and Gratiot and I-94 and Rawsonville, Jefferson and St.
Aubin.
Mr. Engebretson: Ann Arbor and Sheldon would be, in essence, a duplicate of this
operation? We asked this question last week and we were under the
14873
impression that permits had been pulled at a number of locations but
there were none constructed.
New
Mr. Ray: The shape of the facility is different.
Mr. Engebretson: I am really disappointed because I would have liked to have had an
opportunity to go and see that. What concerns me is because of the
location of this particular store this does not go on to the City Council,
and I just want to make sure we do our job properly. I would have
liked to have had an opportunity to see it. Maybe that is what we will
do.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman I am more shocked than you because he just said
Jefferson and St. Aubin and that Mobil station is just across the street
from where I work and I never noticed this color scheme. I have one
other question. Is this a 24-hour operation?
Mr. Ray: It is currently a 24-hour operation and will continue to be a 24-hour
operation.
Mr. LaPine: Do the people that work there at night, are they behind bullet-proof
glass?
Mr. Ray: Currently there is a bullet resistant security enclosure. Mobil
N"' Corporation, which this is a Mobile corporate owned and operated
facility, makes the decision on location by location basis on whether or
not security is going to be required.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, you brought up a good point. It is close and I don't
think there is any panic on this so I would offer a motion to table this
until we all have a chance to look at it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved,
#4-68-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 96-4-8-5 by Building Design Associates, Inc. requesting approval
for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection
with a proposal to construct a gas station/convenience center on property
located at 29231 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, until May
14, 1996.
14874
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Barbara Argue, on behalf of the Hair & Nail Gym, requesting
approval for signage for the building located at 33033 Seven Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 10.
Mr. Miller: This is located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Woodring. It
was formerly occupied by the dress shop "Dora's Place". This building
is allowed two wall signs because it is located on a corner lot. It is not
permitted a ground sign due to deficient front yard setback, and that is
what they are proposing. They are proposing one for the north
elevation, which would face Seven Mile, and it is 22 sq. ft., which is
what is permitted. They are also proposing one wall sign for the west
elevation, which would face Woodring Avenue, which is also 22 sq. ft.
It is a conforming sign package, therefore it meets the ordinance.
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here. She has waited until eleven o'clock so we
will give her the opportunity to say whatever she has to say.
Barbara Argue: There is nothing to say. It is just there.
Mr. Engebretson: Tell us something about it.
Ms. Argue: We named it the Gym because everybody is into shaping their bodies,
we felt you have to shape up your hair and nails.
Mr. Engebretson: You are located on Five Mile Road just west of Farmington presently,
and you are moving to this new building that used to be called "Dora's
Dress Shop". You will be occupying the whole building?
Ms. Argue: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: You are entitled to two signs in this particular instance because you are
on an intersection and you obviously have adequate parking. I notice
you have a sign there announcing your arrival. Have you heard from
any of your neighbors?
Ms. Argue: Just the one directly behind me, who is also the owner of the building,
and he said they are just delighted.
Mr. Engebretson: We anticipated they would be. They were very dissatisfied with the
previous proposal but what you are bringing to that neighborhood I am
14875
sure will be welcomed with open arms. We want to wish you good
luck.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
Now
approved, it was
#4-69-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Barbara Argue, on behalf of
the Hair& Nail Gym, requesting approval for signage for the building
located at 33033 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Planet Neon Sign Systems, as received by the
Planning Commission on April 17,1996, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 723rd Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on April 30, 1996 was adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
g.44,0-4
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
ATTEST: G Cy` G 6 (,
Jack ngebretson, hairman
Ig