HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-12-19 10947
MINUTES OF THE 592nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
Now
On Tuesday, December 19, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 592nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. William LaPine, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 50 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent
Herman Kluver* Brenda Lee Fandrei R. Lee Morrow
James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek
Members absent: Sue Sobolewski
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director,
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. LaPine informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner
has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the
petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a
preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do
not become effective until 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.
*7:33 - Mr. Kluver entered meeting at this time.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 89-11-7-3 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #809-89, to
determine whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of
Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, and Part VII, the Future Land
Use Plan, to add the "Nature Preserve" designation and to designate
existing park land areas or parts of park land areas as nature preserves.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. LaPine: I am going to have Mr. Nagy explain what we are doing here.
Mr. Nagy: What is being proposed in connection with item number one on your
agenda is an amendment to our Master Plan. The Master Plan is a
guide to the future land use of the City of Livonia. It is a
document that is open for public examination. Anyone purchasing
property or looking at property in the City of Livonia would be
encouraged to come into City Hall and examine the document and they
10948
could learn from its review what the various land uses are for the
City and what the Planning Commission has in mind for various areas
of the City. While these are existing parks, in this case we are
trying to show that specifically these are to be nature preserves and
not general parks in terms of playgrounds and other apparatus. They
'�•► are to be limited for nature preserves to protect the wetlands, the
trees, etc. It is an amendment to our plan to show this more precise
designation ofltthe land use for these five park areas.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think our Secretary should read the definition of a nature
preserve to our audience so they know what we are talking about. We
have it in our notes.
Mr. Tent: A Nature Preserve is a land area which remains undisturbed in its
natural state and has unique characteristics such as a dense growth
of trees, wild flowers and a variety of other plants, animals and
birds normally associated with a densely wooded area, and which may
also include wetlands or other areas prone to flooding.
Diane Stanbury, 20073 Stamford Dr. : My house backs up to the section that you have
on the overhead at this time (Area E). We are not in favor of the
rezoning in that particular area at this time. We have just
grassland behind our home. Currently there are no trees. They were
destroyed when the builder came in. Our concern is mainly that if
the weeds were allowed to grow up to that creek that runs through
there, the Tarabusi, that our little kids, that we can see playing
down there now, could not be seen because the weeds grow four to five
feet high. It is a real concern to us for the safety of our
children. When that creek does flood it goes to about six feet and
it really rushes. We, of course, are definitely concerned about
being able to see our kids.
Mr. LaPine: You do understand we are not rezoning this? We are just putting a
designation on this that it is a nature preserve, therefore it can't
be used for anything else.
Ms. Stanbury: It also means that we could not mow the grass that is there now.
Mr. Nagy: With a strict interpretation of nature preserve, yes you would not
want to disturb the area. You would want to leave it natural.
Obviously we know in these cases where the homeowner would back up to
property, there really isn't a significant wildlife habitat in place,
we would understand there would be some normal ordinary maintenance
in order to maintain the property. To answer your question - Yes if
it were really a significant area but no you could continue to make
those ordinary maintenance efforts to maintain your property in the
manner in which you have.
Ms. Stanbury: Then we don't have a problem.
Ron Reinke, Superintendent of Parks & Recreation: I would like to address the issue
of maintenance in areas adjacent to public parks. There is an
ordinance on the books that requires the residents to notify the
department in writing requesting to do this and we will then issue a
10949
letter to them in accordance with the City ordinance that is
appropriate to that. We would request any resident that is here
tonight to please do so at your earliest convenience. We will grant
permission for that specific area that is allowed under City
ordinance.
Jane Comstock, 20212 Pollyanna: Several of our neighbors, after having received the
notice of this petition, were very much in favor of having it left in
the raw but as it stated a park, I guess we want to go on record that
we are not wanting or hoping that there will not be any sign posted
at Eight Mile Road indicating this is a City park. We are hoping it
will stay in the raw and there will not be nature lovers who will
come through with their binoculars because our bedrooms all back up
to the area. I just want it on the record that we really don't want
any signs. Do you know if there are any in the plans?
Mr. Reinke: Windridge Park has been in existence since Windridge Subdivision went
in and to my knowledge there has never been a sign up there and we
have no plans to put any sign anywhere there. There is no public
access other than Eight Mile Road. As a public park site I do have
to point out that the general public and the rest of this community
do have access to that at any time the park is open.
Ms. Comstock: There are no plans for putting in a nature trail?
Mr. LaPine: No. If you remember, we vacated some property that used to have an
access to it.
Ms. Comstock: Your intention is not to put up signs on this property?
Mr. LaPine: Not at this time. If they ever do, you would be notified.
,`
Gary Martz: I am here regarding the Grandview Park. Right now I just have some
concerns. It is right next to a school. Kids walk home that way and
right not it is a dark and desolate area. I am concerned about the
children's safety. It has often been used as a dump. I have lived
there for four and a half years and I have seen everything. I have
seen people going in there smoking dope, dumping refuse, motorcycles
going crazy in there, snowmobiles, etc. I know you are not here for
this reason. I think it could be used for better usage. I really
don't want it to be a nature preserve. I would like to see it
developed. What I understand, I am not sure about this, the schools
owned that property and handed it over to the City. I was wondering
if maybe the City could sell the property to a developer and the
developer could put the money back into the schools and maybe enhance
the schools a little bit.
Mr. LaPine: That is a question that Council will have to determine. We need park
lands in Livonia and that is why I would be reluctant, as one member
of this Commission, to sell that off for homes. I think we need the
parks. We don't have that many parks in Livonia and any time we can
save some lands for nature preserves or for parks, I think we should.
Mr. Martz: It is also being used as a dump. I don't see the City coming by and
cutting the grass.
f..
10950
Mr. LaPine: If you see anyone dumping there, get their license number and call
the Police Department.
Suzanne McInerney, 19020 Mayfield: I want to state this Planning Commission is to be
commended that they are considering making this a wildlife preserve.
_" I am quite surprised it has not been designated so far. I have lived
there for 11 years and I always thought it was already a nature
preserve so naturally when I got your notice and I realized that it
could be public land and therefore not become nature preserve, I was
very concerned. As I see more and more building going on, whether it
is subdivisions or strip malls on Seven Mile, some of which are very
close to where I live, I would like to feel we have to hold on to a
little bit of some of the things that many Livonians feel are very
near and dear to them.
Russ Rheaume, 32405 Seven Mile: We are abutting the Rotary Park nature preserve. I
have been up and down the Tarabusi River because I like to explore.
Sometimes it is very hard to get through there but in the winter you
just get your boots on and you just go. There is a beautiful small
waterfalls that nobody knows about but if you go half a block in you
will see it. I was really delighted when I saw this. It makes me
very happy. In Rotary Park itself there are totally mature tulip
trees, beach trees and oaks and they take many, many years to
develop. Those are the last trees that come when a forest develops.
We have a unique situation in Livonia where we can keep this. This
is the way Detroit was 100 years ago. If you go all around Livonia
you are going to see, especially this area here, that it is very hard
to find anything anywhere around the Metropolitan Detroit area that
will match that. We should hold onto it.
Michael Judge, 31756 Hillbrook: I would like to speak in favor of this. I wasn't
sure what the definition of nature preserve was. I was a little
suspicious to tell you the truth because there has been an attempt to
develop the area. I would like some assurance this is nature
preserve and that it isn't in a category that can be traded to a
developer who happens to have some land with trees on it somewhere
else. We would like to see this remain as it is in its natural
state. Is there any chance a developer could come in and say I have
so many acres and I would like to take this piece and turn it into a
condo or something like that?
Mr. Nagy: That is really the purpose for this to give the land more protection.
Mr. Judge: Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow: The nature preserve zoning classification is relatively new. The
function of nature preserve statement never really carries that
title. It is kind of removing it from an active park and
re-enforcing and making it less intense than even a public park.
What we are doing is defining it a little bit better and putting it
on the Master Plan as a nature preserve and with the next petition we
are going to rezone it to a nature preserve.
10951
Terry Snider, 31650 Curtis: I adjoin Rotary Park. My question is the park area as
we see it today does not have access to Seven Mile Road. I was under
the impression that one of those pieces is available for sale and
that person is considering subdividing it and putting houses along
there. Would there be an opportunity at this time for the City to
`40_ look at purchasing that to make access also from Merriman Road?
Mr. LaPine: That would be some action you would have to address to Council.
Mr. Snider: My last question would be to Mr. Reinke. When public land becomes a
nature preserve, is there anything in that zoning that says
construction of pathways or permanent buildings are restricted.
Mr. Reinke: I believe the ordinance addresses the fact that we would not be able
to build any permanent structures or buildings on the property. I do
believe it addresses the fact that we can maintain and create trails
as necessary. The Rotary Park, in particular, has a number of
trails that we do maintain on a regular basis. We do not anticipate
creating any more trails.
Mr. Snider: As a resident that adjoins the park, I have no objection to changing
this designation.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-11-7-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-254-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of
Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission, having held a
Public Hearing on December 19, 1989 for the purpose of amending Part V of
the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan,
and Part VII, the Future Land Use Plan, the same is hereby amended to add
the "Nature Preserve" designation for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed amendments to the Master Plan will assist in the
preservation of certain designated land areas in their natural state.
2) That the proposed amendments will reflect the City's desire to
preserve public lands which have the special characteristics required
to be designated as a Nature Preserve.
AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of
the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning
Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master School
and Park Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by
reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning
Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment
shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning
Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of
Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10952
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-11-1-33 by
the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone the following property
from PL and R-3 to NP: That portion of Bicentennial Park lying west of
Bicentennial Parkway to the golf course fence and north of the tennis
courts to the boundary of the Deer Creek Subdivision; that portion of
`ew Rotary Park lying north of the ball diamonds to Seven Mile Road; that
portion of Blue Grass Park lying south of a line starting 100' north of
Ladywood Avenue and drawn west to Interstate 275/96; Grandview Park in its
entirety and Windridge Park in its entirety.
Mr. Bakewell 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 proposal. We have also
received a letter from Robert L. Greene of 18150 Fairfield Avenue
stating that as a resident of Livonia for almost 40 years and a
member of the Planning Commission for 8 consecutive years during the
city's early formative days, he wanted to commend the commissioners
for initiating and supporting this petition. He states he will be
unable to attend the meeting but would like his letter entered into
the record as it expresses the sentiments of a great many Livonia
residents, and reflects the goal (among others) of the Greenbriar
Estates Improvement Association, whose members fought for the project
years ago.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-11-1-33 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
,` it was
##12-255 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
19, 1989 on Petition 89-11-1-33 by the City Planning Commission requesting
to rezone the following property from PL and R-3 to NP: That portion of
Bicentennial Park lying west of Bicentennial Parkway to the golf course
fence and north of the tennis courts to the boundary of the Deer Creek
Subdivision; that portion of Rotary Park lying north of the ball diamonds
to Seven Mile Road; that portion of Blue Grass Park lying south of a line
starting 100' north of Ladywood Avenue and drawn west to Interstate
275/96; Grandview Park in its entirety and Windridge Park in its entirety,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 89-11-1-33 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed changes of zoning will further provide for the
preservation and protection of the described properties as nature
preserves.
2) That the proposed changes of zoning will further limit the uses
permitted on the described properties which contain the unique
characteristics necessary to be designated as a nature preserve.
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.
10953
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-11-1-35 by
the Allie Bros. Investment requesting to rezone property located on the
west side of Middlebelt Road between Bretton and Norfolk Streets in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to C-1.
Mr. Bakewell 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.
John Allie, 19500 Gary Lane: We have a business that is immediatedly north of the
property that we are requesting rezoning on, which is at 20295
Middlebelt. We have operated a business in this area for
approximately 19 years. We have full intentions of trying our very
best to continue to be good neighbors to everyone in the area. We
also would like to aesthetically build a nice building which the City
of Livonia would be proud of as well as Allie Investment. Basically
that is it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Allie you said you owned the top strip center?
Mr. Allie: Yes we do.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You own the whole building.
Mr. Allie: I am a partner.
err
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is your intention, if this goes through, to also have another
building like the one you have up now?
Mr. Allie: Truthfully, I want to confer with Mr. Nagy as to the best use of the
property for commercial use. We are not totally set on having
another building similar to the one we have now.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I thought I heard that you may extend the building that you are in.
Mr. Allie: We did discuss that possibility but I didn't want to go through with
that without conferring with Mr. Nagy.
Mr. LaPine: Do you own the two parcels now?
Mr. Allie: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Are there residents living in those homes now?
Mr. Allie: Yes. We expect the second house to be vacated within ten days.
Mr. LaPine: If you get the rezoning, would those homes be demolished right away?
Mr. Allie: I would probably wait.
10954
Mr. Tent: I have a question about the property. Were it rezoned, how soon
would you go forth with your development?
Mr. Allie: Truthfully, depending on the economy, I would like to do it next
summer but if things don't turn out we may wait a year.
`r..
Mr. Tent: Do you have any intention of just selling the property?
Mr. Allie: No. We intend to build and manage the property ourselves.
Mr. Engebretson: Is it safe to assume, Mr. Nagy, that the property owners
immediatedly to the west received due notice of this?
Mr. Nagy: It is safe to say that.
Mr. LaPine: Do we have any problem with parking with his building that is there?
Mr. Nagy: He fully meets all of the standards of the zoning requirements.
Mr. LaPine: If he was having problems, I would be inclined to say let's make part
of this P for parking
Mr. Kluver: A question to the petitioner. Mr. Allie you alluded to the fact that
economic reasons will dictate what you will do if you are granted
this rezoning. You do have some type of a plan for why you want this
rezoning and why you purchased the property. Is that correct?
Mr. Allie: Definitely. Again, I alluded to the fact that in the past we have
demonstrated an excellent relationship with the City. I have always
worked with Mr. Nagy or Mr. Shane or Mr. Bakewell. We don't want to
go ahead and plan something without making absolutely sure we can do
*imp
something or we can't do it. For some confidential reasons I have
someone in mind I would like to approach that would be good for the
City. Someone we are talking to now but I would just as soon not
bring it up at this moment. Anything we have said we would do in the
past, we have done.
Mr. Kluver: If you could possibly share some of what you want to do and how you
want to develop it. Do you want to expand your existing business?
Do you want to bring in a new business? Because C-1 zoning is very
privileged.
Mr. Allie: I understand. Truthfully we are not after just another strip center
look. From an economic standpoint we don't want to be just another
strip center. We would like to have a different look. We would like
to separate the building. I am not excited about just adding stores
to what we have even though it would be easier to do. We are very
interested in putting up a building that would look good and be
marketable five to ten years from now. We are looking ahead.
Mr. Kluver: But esentially you are talking about bringing in a new tenant. You
are not expanding your business?
Mr. Allie: That is one of the possibilities.
10955
Mr. Kluver: I guess one of the concerns we have on the Commission and we
encourage development, but we get to a point where we are getting a
complex in the City which is a strip center complex and we would like
to see that type of thing upgraded. I guess I am asking, as best as
you can, to share with us what your thoughts are on why you would
*ftly want to develop this and why you want the zoning.
Mr. Allie: One possibility is we are talking about a financial institution
possibly building right on that lot.
Mr. LaPine: Lot 381. Do you own that parcel too?
Mr. Allie: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: What do you use that for now?
Mr. Allie: It was just recently purchased.
Mr. LaPine: If you get the rezoning, when you develop it will be three lots
instead of two?
Mr. Allie: Yes.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-11-1-35 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-256-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
89-11-1-35 by the Allie Bros. Investment requesting to rezone property
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Bretton and Norfolk
Streets in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to C-1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 89-11-1-35 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical and minor
extension of the C-1 zoning district in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
compatible to adjacent commercial uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning 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. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-11-2-52 by
Angelo DiPonio Enterprises, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
construct buildings for general office purposes on property located on the
south side of Five Mile Road between Levan Road and Golfview Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 20.
10956
Mr. Bakewell 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 Fire Marshal's office stating they
\r. have no objection to this proposal contingent upon the installation
of an approved fire hydrant to be located no further than 350 feet
from the building in the southwest corner of the property. We have
also received a letter from the Engineering Department stating the
plan meets with their approval but it is recommended that prior to
approval of the petition the proposed site plan be reviewed by the
Department of Natural Resources. The above agency established a
flood plain control for this area. Further, it appears that the box
culvert design under Golfview Avenue was a function of retaining the
flood plain area north of the Bell Drain ditch. Therefore, it may
not be possible to fill and develop the site without some redesign
considerations of the box culvert under Golfview Avenue.
We have a letter in our file from the Traffic Bureau stating the
following comments are submitted for your consideration: 1. Parking
appears to be adequate. However, no handicapped locations are
designated. 2. There are four driveways provided. There is good
separation except the western-most which is only 50 feet from
Bingham's. I recommend the "consolidation" of the middle two drives.
This would help reduce entry/exit friction with the possible gain of
a few parking spaces. 3. The Bell Drain runs at the rear of the
property. There is a 10 - 12 foot drop from the parking lot to the
drain bed. It is recommended that barriers be constructed at the
south end of each drive to prevent an out-of-control vehicle from
running into the drain. Properly designed berms with ornamental
shrubs could serve the purpose.
Also in our file is a letter from the Department of Parks and
Recreation stating the purpose of their letter is to express concern
regarding storm water run off to the Bell-Bakewell Drain. They state
the drain often carries capacity run-off and causes damage and
subsequent closure of Idyl Wyld Golf Course downstream. We are fully
cognizant of the fact that the area of Idyl Wyld affected is a flood
plain, however, each new development upstream causes more run-off.
At this time, we request that the Commission take those steps
necessary to insure that the subsequent run-off from the development
not impact or cause further damage to the City owned property
downstream. The summer of 1989 saw many storms and forced closure of
the golf course due to flooding. We appreciate the opportunity to
comment on this problem and realize that the property will be
developed in the best possible manner under the guidelines
established by the Planning Commission.
We also have received a letter from Dawn and Joel Johnson of 36092
Parkhurst stating their strong feelings about the development of the
property and their many concerns. They ask that we consider this as
their request to leave the zoning as 'Professional Services' and
leave the existing wildlife and ravine area alone.
10957
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, would you read the letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from Ordinance Enforcement Division stating
the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The two
buildings to the east lie within the flood plain and would not be
permitted. 2. The required protective wall would be located in the
flood plain. 3. Several of the aisles scale out at 20' . Aisles are
required to be 22' . 4. Parking appears to be sufficient for general
office use but if medical use is proposed along with general office,
parking requirements may not be met. Items 2, 3 and 4 could be
appealed to the ZBA for approval.
Mr. McCann: I believe this petition, through the chair to Mr. Nagy, relates just
to the zoning and we are not attaching a site plan nor are we
reviewing one this evening?
Mr. Nagy: The site plan has been withdrawn.
Mr. McCann: It would be beneficial for Mr. Nagy to describe the major point of
difference between general office and professional service and also
this Planning Commission's prior position with regard to that and the
proposed amendment to it.
Mr. Nagy: What we have before the Planning Commission is not a rezoning
proposal. Within the P.S. zoning district there are both permitted
uses and prohibited uses and also a classification called waiver
uses. Permitted uses are those uses that are allowed by right in
professional services, which are medical, legal, engineering,
accounting and medical offices. Prohibited uses would be any use of
a commercial nature, such as the retail field, over-the-counter
Num. sales. Those kinds of commercial uses are prohibited. In addition
to that there is a classification called waiver use. Waivers,
because of their very nature, require special consideration and a
a series of standards which the petitioner must be found in
compliance with by the Planning Commission and City Council. That
prohibition can be waived and the use is allowed. Waiver uses are
general offices, insurance offices, real estate offices. Those kinds
of uses are excluded from either of these classifications. General
offices are generally administrative types of offices where there
would be builders reps, etc. More of a general area rather than
limited to legal or medical. This is a hearing not on whether or not
the property should be rezoned but whether those waiver uses that
would fall more in a general service classification should be
allowed within the district.
Mr. Engebretson: In order that we don't mislead the public or misrepresent what is
going on here, I would like to ask Mr. Nagy to further clarify what
is going on with respect to the proposed site plan that has been
referenced several times, not only in the Ordinance Enforcement
letter but in the resident's letter and in one or two other
instances. The point being that the site plan is simply a necessary
part in filing this waiver use petition and that the proposed use is
only to give an example of possible use. There is no intention per
se to develop that particular site and I believe that Mr. Nagy
fir.
10958
could probably embellish more on that. My main point is that the
site plan you have heard about is not being considered here tonight
but I think there is a possibility there is some confusion out there
tonight. Mr. Nagy if you could just make sure we are squared up
with the citizens that are here and those that are watching on
Channel 8.
Mr. Nagy: In submitting an application for waiver use, the application require-
ment sets forth certain kinds of documents that the Planning
Commission requires so that the Commission can better evaluate
whether or not that prohibition I spoke about should be waived and
the use allowed. They try to have plans prepared so they can try to
have a more realistic appraisal made of the use to be made of the
property. It is an application requirement. Part of that
application requirement is a site plan to show how the property would
be developed in the event this general office or whatever waiver uses
were to be allowed on the property. The petitioner, in submitting
this application, in order to comply with the application
requirements, submitted a site plan and that site plan is what we
sent around to the other City departments and that is what the other
departments commented on. It is the same site plan that petitioner
used in 1986 when he attempted to rezone the property from
residential to professional service. In the prehearing review, the
Chairman mentioned and the staff was asked to furnish certain
resolutions. At the prehearing review the petitioner came forward
and advised the Planning Commission that they are not the ones that
will actually develop the property. That the site plan that they
submitted was, in fact, the same site plan that they used at the time
of the rezoning and was illustrated to show that it was their intent
to try to have a broader use of the property in their attempt to
market the property. The property owner, as you may know, is
�.• Greenfield Construction Company, Angelo DiPonio Enterprises. Mr.
DiPonio is now deceased. The property is in his estate. They are
attempting to sell the property. Anyone who resides in the
neighborhood knows the sign has been on the property since the time
it was rezoned. Because Mrs. DiPonio wants to dispose of those
assets of her estate, they are more aggressively trying to market the
property. That is why they came forward and asked for this general
office classification. The plan is one of meeting the application
requirements, illustrative only. They will not attempt to develop
the property in the manner shown.
Paul Riggio: I work for Angelo DiPonio Enterprises at 13040 Merriman Road. I
would like to thank Mr. Nagy for his participating in this forum here
tonight to clarify any discrepencies that might be involved with this
waiver use. I would like to make a few points. Number one, I want
to reiterate Mr. Nagy's appraisal. We had to submit the site plan
drawing as a Catch 22 in order to get it on the agenda. It is the
same site plan that I submitted over four years ago. Greenfield
Construction Company does not plan to build any commercial, any
professional or any general offices. Our intention is to liquidate
our land. Number 2, this area is in a control zone and any building
would have to be approved by the City Council. Number 3, and
probably most important, is myself being involved with the Rennolds'
10959
people and the development of Rennolds' Ravine Subdivision, I feel as
though I have an obligation to the people who purchased those houses
to put the best possible usage to this land as we can so it is
compatible to the houses behind it as well as the land on Five Mile.
Carl Short, 15065 Woodside Dr. Rennolds' Ravine: I am a concerned resident. I am
also the President of the Rennolds' Ravine Civic Association. We are
thankful that Mr. Riggio has our best interest at heart in trying to
promote the development of the subdivision. However, we are confused
as to the purpose of applying for a waiver use of the land based upon
a plan which was submitted four years ago and the rework of the
ravine into a flood plain area has made that plan untenable. He has
stated that his primary purpose is to liquidate the land. That seems
to me to be a direct conflict to his wishing to further benefit our
area. It sounds to me that he wants to unload his property at
whatever cost to whomever is willing to buy it and for whatever
reason. That is my personal point of view. We have in the audience,
I would say, about 20 residents of Rennolds' Ravine with various
viewpoints on this proposal. I understand that there are residents
in a subdivision to the north of Five Mile in the audience also. My
primary concern, because I live on Lot 28, if this waiver use is
granted what happens to the professional service, which is off Levan
Road? Are they going to be granted waiver uses also? What is going
to happen to the property by the Farmer Jack vacant supermarket on
the northwest corner of Five Mile and Levan and the property between
there and the bank? Are they going to be granted waiver uses also?
It seems to me the City of Livonia had a possible lawsuit with a
waiver use in the past half year or so. We bought, personally
speaking, our home based on the fact that the City of Livonia has a
good history as far as rezoning things and sticking by it. Now if we
are going to be subject to waivers, where does that put the people
who buy homes in good faith in the City of Livonia? May I ask the
people in the audience who are here from Rennolds' Ravine to stand up
so you see the size of the audience. (Approximately 20 people stood
up in the audience).
Duane Shryock, 36066 Parkhurst: That is Lot 36. That particular lot was a $4500
premium because it backs up to the ravine and was a "wooded lot", 25
foot flood plain deeply wooded to the north of the ravine. That
particular area provides a shelter for wildlife, a barrier for the
subdivision from road noises, ambulances that go to St. Mary's
Hospital, etc. The site plan that was submitted, or alluded to, and
associated with the waiver would destroy the vast majority of the
trees in the flood plain and, in fact, eliminate the flood plain.
The earlier discussions on the first item today seemed to indicate
that the City of Livonia was very concerned about wildlife and would
resist destroying a true nature preserve. I think this is more of a
nature preserve than some of the areas that you had on earlier. On a
personal basis, I lose one to two feet by the easement to the ravine
each year. I have neighbors that lose as much as two to three feet
with the spring rush of the water through the creek. If the flood
plain were gone through a waiver, I am very concerned that the creek
and its action would further erode the property at a faster rate that
10960
would be exacerbated by the run off from the parking areas if in fact
the waiver was approved. You will have to help me with this. It is
my understanding that a waiver to a commercial use would indicate a
much greater requirement for a parking area. I also feel on a very
personal basis that the waiver and whatever site plans are ultimately
�.. developed for the property would dramatically impact my premium
investment in the lot and I ask you consider that in any granting of
the waiver.
Mr. Morrow: I think we can go on record that this site plan has been withdrawn so
we are going to consider the waiver without the site plan.
Mr. Shryock: Would the difference between general office and professional services
indicate that there would be a much higher usage of the land for
parking and run off, etc.
Mr. Morrow: What we are doing is just considering a waiver. Let's say whether or
not this waiver goes through, we are not relieving the property owner
of the site plan process. If you were notified of this meeting, you
would come back not only before this body but before City Council to
review that site plan, if you make it known to the City Council and
to us that you are interested. It doesn't require a public hearing
but you can certainly be a part of the process. I just want to make
sure you understand that.
Mr. Tent: Your comments are well received by this Commissioner. I too would be
concerned with the property and how it would be developed and I would
like to see a concrete plan. What they are asking for here is a
waiver use so they could sell the property and it could be used for
two purposes, professional services and general offices. Now the
general office would require different types of parking, etc. because
`wy it would not entail doctors, lawyers and other uses. By going to
general offices it is more appealing and they could put in more uses
for that particular property, which could entail some additional
parking. The thing I would be concerned about, if I lived near the
property, would be the flood plain. So justifiably you people should
watch this piece of property very closely. The site plan that was
submitted, I have a question on that. Has that been officially
withdrawn?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it has. Mr. Riggio did indicate at your prehearing review that
he had, in fact, withdrawn the site plan.
Mr. Tent: My position would be if that site plan that was submitted was
approved as it was presented to us, I would have to vote against it
because it does not comply with what we are looking for in that area.
I would ask to have it go on the record that the site plan has been
withdrawn. All we are talking now is just the waiver use for general
offices in a professional service district.
Mr. Nagy: To try to answer the questions you asked, whether or not the waiver
uses are granted or not, the professional service district
regulations still prevail in terms of the percentage of the site area
to be developed, amount of square footage of building to be put on
rr•
10961
the property, the setbacks of the buildings from the property lines,
the designation of the site in terms of the flood plain area. All
that remains exactly the same. Off-street parking is not really a
function of general office or professional office. It is really a
function of the precise nature of the office use. Within the P.S.
`, district there you could put medical offices there, like the medical
buildings that are on Levan Road. Medical buildings require one
parking space for 75 square feet of office area. General offices and
professional offices that would have accountants, lawyers,
architects, engineers, even general offices require one parking space
for 200 square feet of office area. You are not really affecting the
parking area at all when you grant waiver uses. The parking goes
with the nature of the use but the percentage of the site area to be
developed is not going to be affected whether or not these waivers
are or are not granted.
Mr. McCann: The Planning Commission has already put to Council an amendment to
the ordinance which would change substantially the general office
classification and I would like Mr. Nagy to explain the board's prior
decision with regard to this amendment.
Mr. Nagy: The City Planning Commission has initiated a text amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance that doesn't deal with the map itself. It deals
with the text of the ordinance. It proposes to amend that section of
the ordinance that deals with waiver uses and take the general office
classification out of the waiver use and put it in the permitted uses
with the exception of two uses, real estate and insurance. The
reasons why the Planning Commission has extracted those from falling
under the general heading, the Commission felt the far range of
general office may not be as compatible as other types of offices in
residential areas those uses tend to back up to. Those uses tend to
'4110, have more commercial overtones than what you might find in other
general office. Real estate offices tend to be open later in the
evening. They tend to advertise. They tend to have weekend hours.
They tend to have sales staff that come in. The same with insurance.
So all of the uses that are likely to fall under the general office
heading, the Planning Commission has extracted those and has
recommended to the City Council that general offices henceforth would
be permitted within the P.S. district.
Rudolph Magdziarz, 15145 Golfview: That is Lot 42. I concur with the reasons
given for the objection to the development of that site but in
addition to that I personally can't see how you can put buildings and
a parking lot there and expect to park all those cars without running
onto Parkhurst and Golfview. From Levan to Golfview is approximately
1/4 mile or 1300 feet. I am left with 1,000 feet. Where can I put
the buildings without affecting the subdivision. I was impressed
with the Commission talking about a nature preserve. I am interested
in the beauty of my subdivision. First of all we paid big money for
our homes and I think our taxes are about the second highest in the
City of Livonia. Another thing, the people in the association are
doing everything we can to beautify the subdivision. We want to
build it up. Putting in all those buildings with the parking lots, I
10962
feel you are going to make that look like a used car lot. That is my
opinion. I don't want traffic coming down our way because we have a
peninsula. that is my objection.
Mr. Vyhnalek: When you bought your lot you knew there were going to be buildings
there?
\r.
Mr. Magdziarz: No sir. They said we don't believe anything will be put there
because there is insufficient area for a building. If Mr. DiPonio
wants to get rid of the property, I have a suggestion. This
gentleman here, he can relay the message. He can donate it to the
City of Livonia, get a tax break and we will all be happy. You have
done that on Plymouth Road just west of Middlebelt. Let's do the
same thing at our place. If this gentleman says he is interested and
he feels he has an obligation to the people in Rennolds, Ravine, do
that.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It was our understanding when we rezoned this that it was going to be
P.S. I am sure when they sold you the house they told the people
that. That flood plain cannot be built on at all. There is some
buildable property in that area. He can build there right now.
Don Anderson, 15121 Golfview: I want to support many of the things my neighbors have
already said. I want to point out a few things. I think when the
developer purchased the property he was aware of the limitations.
Obviously there was already a change made and now there is a request
for another change. It seems to me the burden of proof is on the
developer to demonstrate that there is some kind of a compelling need
to make this change. The need that they want to sell the property at
a high price is not, in my estimation, a compelling need. I don't
believe the DiPonio family is known for its poverty. As for DiPonio
Enterprises being concerned with the welfare of the people in the
'` subdivision, that is news to me. I have had a number of items they
have never taken care of on my home that I just happened to remember
at this point in time. There is a larger problem that I see with
this particular minor case and that is there is more development here
in Livonia and I guess I am assuming the development that may occur
is one that will involve more congestion rather than less congestion.
Livonia is really a City in danger of losing its soul and becoming a
City with the soul of a strip mall and I am not sure we want to see
Livonia continue to develop that way. It has a domino affect that
you can see in different parts of the City, parts of the City that I
would not want to be located near. As a resident I will be able to
see whatever buildings will go on this particular strip. I saw some
plans which indicated there would be four buildings and I am not sure
whether this is correct. Maybe only two buildings will be
permissible but with the variance maybe four. Now I hear the plans
have been withdrawn and there is no plan so basically they can do
what they want. You are asking us as citizens to buy a pig-in-a-
poke. You are asking us to trust the DiPonio people and that they
will do a great job and trust the City of Livonia to see to it that
they do a great job. I don't want to even get to that point where I
have to see the four buildings that they want to put up or whether we
need tremendous amounts of landscaping to hide the buildings the
neighborhood will be looking at. Some of the people have already
10963
mentioned environmental concerns. If you are there in a heavy
rainstorm, you can see heavy runoff and if that area is paved over, I
assume that the water runoff will be even more serious of a problem.
Traffic congestion will become a problem. I know the traffic depart-
ment said it was no big deal because there are places in the City
where it is worse. We don't want to see this part of the City become
'`.• as bad as Middlebelt. As for landscaping, I know that will come
later but we don't know what will have to be landscaped, what will
have to be hidden and what we will have to look at. If you want my
particular point of view, I would resist changing that particular
zoning to anything that would produce more development on that
property rather than less. The property owners who purchased the
homes there, some of us did know and some of us did not know what was
going to go on there, but I think they did not expect the land would
be rezoned for another mini Northland Center or something along this
line. That is how many of us would see the problem there. We would
ask you to very seriously consider our concerns and place the burden
of proof on DiPonio to prove there is a real need for this variance.
Mr. LaPine: Before you go away, I would like to correct something you said.
Number one, you said you were buying a pig-in-a-poke. Number two, if
this land was rezoned, he can do what he wants. No matter if this
land was rezoned or not rezoned, he still has to come back for site
plan approval and after we finish with him he has to go to Council
for their approval, therefore you have two more opportunities to look
at the property before it is developed.
Mr. Magdziarz: I understand but in these kind of situations a builder can continue
to push, push, push and the residents may not be there for all those
meetings in the future and basically if the variance could be stopped
at this point in time, I would be very happy rather than to come back
again and again and again.
Mr. Kluver: Just a comment. We on the Planning Commission are recommending and
the ultimate decision will be made by the City Council, which are
your elected officials. Regardless of the decision that is made at
this level, it still goes to a second body.
Mr. Magdziarz: I understand but you ought not to wash your hands of it either.
Mr. Kluver: We are not washing our hands. In fact sir this Commission will stand
and look at the footprint of this City and its development. I have
been a member of this Commission since 1971 and I can look at this
City and say we have built one heck of a City.
Donna Donaldson, 36114 Parkhurst: My husband and I are opposed to a waiver of the
property on Five Mile. When we purchased this property we knew it
was zoned professional service. We felt comfortable knowing traffic
would be confined to normal business hours - 9:00 - 5:30 - and be
closed on Saturday and Sunday. The change to general office could be
an invasion of our privacy because our lot backs to what would be the
parking lot of this property. We are also concerned about the
possible flooding problems. We are concerned about increased traffic
and noise. We are concerned about the wildlife, which includes
10964
ducks, racoons, pheasants, groundhogs, etc. We are concerned about
parking close to property lines. We are asking the City planners to
please deny a request for a waiver regarding this property.
Mr. Short: I would like a point of clarification. My thoughts also involved the
verbage pig-in-a-poke. There is nothing to be gained by granting a
`.. waiver use towards the sale of this property. There is no plan
involved in asking for a waiver use. As was stated by Mr. Nagy, you
don't have to have a plan and a waiver use can be granted at any
time. So why the request for waiver use at all?
Mr. LaPine: I think the people in the audience are confused by professional
service and general office. Basically, general office and
professional services are generally compatible. As has been stated
the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the
ordinance be amended so that general office and professional service
zoning would be basically the same. The reason he is asking, he
would like general office. He thinks he could sell it more readily
as general office than professional service. If we deny him the
waiver, he still has P.S. zoning. He could sell it to someone else
and they would have to come back to us. What he is asking for is
something he feels would make the property more marketable and
someone could use it as general office rather than leasing out the
buildings for doctors.
Mr. Short: I am not trying to tell the Planning Commission their business
because we are not involved with the situations you face and we don't
know all the ins and outs. We do know the fact that when we bought
this property we were told several times that the adjacent property
on the west side of Rennolds' Ravine was zoned professional services
and also that certain areas was designated as a flood plain and was
unbuildable. What is the terminology unbuidable mean? Does it mean
*ftir you can't put a two-story or a four-story building on there?
Mr. LaPine: The unbuildable portion of land is what is deemed as flood plain and
that could not be built on. The only parcels that could be built on
is what the Engineering Department deems that can be used as buidable
property.
Mr. Short: What is the connotation of the term buildable?
Mr. Nagy: Buildable means you would build something upon it, like a parking lot
or structure. Those kinds of uses would be prohibited from going
into the designated flood plain area. You cannot build upon a
portion of land area subject to flooding. You cannot build on land
falling within the designated flood plain area.
Mr. Short: The second point I need clarification on is how prevalent, in the
City of Livonia, is the granting of a waiver use? We have a piece of
property that is zoned professional service and it is up for sale. A
proposed plan for erecting some buildings on there was submitted and
a waiver use was requested for that piece of property requesting a
waiver from professional services to general office. The proposed
plan has been withdrawn. The waiver use has not been withdrawn.
r..
10965
My question at this point is how prevalent is the granting of a
waiver use of a piece of property zoned professional service granted
in the City of Livonia? We have a piece of property on the east side
of Levan zoned professional service. What is going to happen if they
come in and request a waiver use?
`%iv Mr. LaPine: They have every right if they want to file a petition for the
Planning Commission asking for a waiver use on that property. They
have a right to do it just like any other person who lives in the
City of Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: May I try to respond to Mr. Short's question relative to how often
does this kind of change occur? All the time. What happens is that
the developers come in with what is perceived to be a relatively low
impact type of zoning, that is to say professional services with the
limited hours, the professional office type use with people coming
and going on whatever basis versus retail or commercial and the
building gets developed and then they say we have so many vacant
buildings, so after some time passes they come back with hardship
looking for relief so they can rent to these other types of
users and usually they get it and the fact of the matter is it
happens all the time. That is why there is this proposed ordinance
change under consideration in front of the Council right now to try
to move these two classifications more into one to eliminate some of
this charade that goes on. If it is going to be a general office
then let's start it out that way. That is what I would like to do in
this case. Rather than take it a step at a time and inch by inch. I
would like to know exactly what is going to go in there, just like
you would, and what the impact is going to be on the environment,
just like you would but the fact of the matter is, it happens all the
time so stay very alert and watch what is going on. As Mr. LaPine
mentioned all these property owners have the right under the
\.• ordinance to request these things. As Mr. LaPine mentioned there is
also the City Council who are your elected officials. We are just
residents. We are in effect volunteers. We live here just like you
so stay in touch with what is going on. Stay in touch with your
elected officials and let them know how you feel.
Mr. Short: Basically what you stated, if I understand you correctly, is the fact
the zoning designation is merely a guideline, which can be gotten
around. Also, and it was alluded to by another gentleman, the fact
that this whole property, Rennolds Ravine, in total used to be zoned
RUF, rural urban farms, and that subdivision was carved out of there.
I am certain that in the acquisition of that total property we all
paid for a chunk of that property which is zoned professional
service.
Mr. McCann: I agree with a lot of what Jack said but there are a couple of points
that I would like to make. We don't have a general office use. It
is a professional service use. Once you get professional service you
have to come back and get a general office waiver. You can't come in
and say we wanted to plan for general offices. You get it zoned
professional service and then you get a waiver. Even if this was his
original plan from day one, he always had to come back to get general
r..
10966
office. That is one of the reasons we already voted to have it
amended so they don't have to do that because they say there is a
problem here. A lot of general office use is less intense than the
professional services. In professional services you have doctors.
You have the patients coming in and out. In general offices it is
not a retail type setting, with late hours, etc. That is generally
`r. not the type. General office is generally where a man has his
business. It will be a manufacturers rep will come in from 9:00 to
5:00 every day and go home. So general office use is lower use. The
problem being the petitioner is stating there is a lot of medical use
around already. There is need for general offices where people can
go to their offices and work. That is the type of inquiries he is
getting and that is why he wants to have this general office use, not
retail, not commercial. The point being, this could never have been
general offices zoned. It could only be professional services with a
general office waiver. That is why we are trying to amend it. Not
to make this any more intense use. He is still going to have to
comply with all the laws. It is just a marketing strategy whether
they can market it to doctors or they can market it to people who
want to put their offices there.
Mr. Short: This option of a waiver to general office use can be extended to that
piece of property no matter whose hands it is in. Is that correct?
Whether it is in Mr. DiPonio's hands or ABC Construction Company or
whomever. So doesn't it then become a moot point? It doesn't affect
the sale of that property one iota.
Mr. LaPine: It really doesn't. What he is trying to do is be up front because
what has happened in the past, as Jack has pointed out, they get it
P.S. zoned. They try to rent the building to doctors and dentists.
A year down the line they still have 50% vacancy. They come back and
say we have an opportunity to rent out space to a manufacturer's rep
`'r. but they can't do it because they don't have the zoning so they come
back and they ask us to grant them a waiver use so they can use the
property and rent it out for a manufacturer's rep or whatever. He is
being up front with us and he would like to get the general office so
he doesn't have to come back to us a year or two from now and have
all these vacancies and can't rent it to whom he wants to rent it
because they are not allowed in that P.S. zoning.
Mr. Short: I am missing something. That piece of property is up for sale.
Whether the waiver use is granted or not, it is still a piece of
property.
Mr. LaPine: What he is saying is that whoever buys the property, it would be more
marketable if he could rent as both professional services and general
offices.
Mr. Short: Doesn't the purchaser of that piece of property have the option to
request that waiver?
Mr. LaPine: Sure he does.
Mr. Short: So how does that make that piece of property more attractive one way
or another?
'ir..
10967
Mr. McCann: To put it quite simply, if you are going to buy your home and you see
it is zoned industrial, you say I don't want to buy my home because
it is industrial but he says you can go and petition and have it
waived. People are more hesitant when they look at it. The question
before us tonight is general office. We have looked at it and said
general office is proper in professional services because it is not
Trow any more intensive, they are generally the same hours of operation.
The people would not be able to tell the difference. That is why we
had the amendment to the ordinance and if the Council acts on that
this whole question will become moot and it won't make any difference
anyway, but at this point he is saying this isn't just proper for
medical right now, I think it is proper for general office because
there are people who need office space.
Mr. Short: Is there any physical difference between a general office building
and professional service building?
Mr. LaPine: Let me point out as Mr. McCann has pointed out general office could
be a less intense use. In a P.S. district a doctor could come in and
open an emergency building and be open 24 hours a day.
Mr. Nagy: Another way to illustrate this point is, let's take medical out of
the picture entirely. Let's say we are talking architects,
accountants and lawyers. They want to build on that property. On
the other hand we have this group of general offices. Let's call
these manufacturers reps that want to build on the property. Each
group, be they lawyers, architects or manufacturers reps, can build
precisely the same size building on this property. The off-street
parking requirement is exactly the same. Percentage of site area
development is the same. For all intents and purposes it is the
same. You don't need any more square feet for general or any more
square feet for architects or lawyers. It is a function of the
``.► off-street parking and it is precisely the same for both. The only
difference is with medical. Medical pumps it up more than double.
It is the doctors operating as clinics, the dental offices, the
medical profession with their laboratories and the many rooms they
have to serve the public that has the heavy parking requirement. All
other offices are 1 to 200.
* Mr. Morrow left the meeting at this time.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-11-2-52 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
19, 1989 on Petition 89-11-2-52 by Angelo DiPonio Enterprises, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to construct buildings for general office
purposes on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Levan Road and Golfview Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 89-11-2-52 be approved subject to the submittal of a fully
developed site plan to the Planning Commission and City Council for the
approval, as required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance, prior to
any development taking place on the property for the following reasons:
10968
1) That the general office designation will provide for uses that are
compatible to and in harmony with the adjacent uses in the area.
2) That subject property has the capacity to accommodate general office
uses.
Now
3) That there is very little difference between general office uses and
professional office uses with respect to their affect on development
of the subject parcel of land.
4) That approval of the proposed use is consistent with the Planning
Commission's philosophy regarding general vs professional office uses
as evidenced by an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which was
recommended by the Planning Commission which amendment provides that
"general offices" would henceforth be treated as permitted uses in
the P.S. zoning district rather than as waiver uses.
5) That this be approved, in accordance with the proposed amendment,
excepting therefrom real estate offices and insurance offices.
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: I would like to speak in opposition to this resolution for a number
of reasons principally because of the unknown effect of what would
happen with building in that area in terms of what impact it is going
to have on the flood plain both in regard to the neighborhood and the
City property across the street, which was outlined in Mr. Reinke's
letter. I am also concerned about the granting of a waiver use
without knowing what the intent is other than to enhance the
�u• marketing of the property. While we have thrashed about pretty
thoroughly here tonight, I understand there is very little
difference. I think the residents have expressed some particularly
significant and justified concerns and therefore I would not only be
opposed to the approval of this resolution, but I would offer a
substitute resolution to table the item until such time as we can get
a entirely thorough and precise understanding of the impact on the
flood plain. This was the professional planning staff's original
recommendation and I think this is exactly what we should do and in
the meantime I think we need to think through very carefully the
impact of granting a waiver use in advance because as our recently
retired president used to say "Here we go again".
Mr. McCann: No disrespect to the audience. I understand your concerns. I grew
up in the area. I played in that area. We have spent many, many
hours discussing the same topic over and over again. Mr. Engebretson
was present when we made the proposed amendment to the Council. I
have amended the petition so the exclusions that we have concerns
about, being the difference between general office and professional
service, would be deleted from this petition and as we have seen
general offices is generally less intense than professional service,
because they have more cars. That is why the requirement is that
they have more spots because they generally have more cars
`r.
10969
coming and going. After Mr. Engebretson has made that recommendation
to the Council, as I recall, stating that he thought it should be
one, why is there an objection to it at this point after you have
stated publicly that you believe general office should not be
designated as a waiver use?
Mr. Engebretson: All I will say is let it take its course and it is conceivable that
the Council could turn this proposal down but in the meantime we have
acted on an issue that would have, in effect, superseded the
Council's proper authority. What is the hurry?
Mr. Tent: I echo Mr. Engebretson's comments. In addition to what Mr.
Engebretson said, which I support, I would say the DiPonio
representative should have come forth with a reasonable plan and
showed what he was doing, instead of the other plan showing they were
going to build up the entire piece of property where they didn't
comply with the flood plain, etc. because that added a lot of
confusion to the issue. I think the residents would have felt more
comfortable if the DiPonio people did develop the property and then
come in with a plan. As it is now, I feel in this case I would like
the people who are buying the property to come forth and say give us
a waiver on it for general office and this is what we are going to
put in. I too would like to table this until such time as we get
some more answers.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I feel the same way. The senior members of this Commission always
asked for a site plan when a waiver was going through. We always
criticized anybody who tried to push it through. I feel we should
have a site plan no matter who is buying the property or who is going
to develop it. I am going to stick to that philosphy and I second
that table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
#12-257-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
19, 1989 on Petition 89-11-2-52 by Angelo DiPonio Enterprises, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to construct buildings for general office
purposes on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Levan Road and Golfview Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the
City Planning Commission tables Petition 89-11-2-52 until date uncertain.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Kluver, LaPine
ABSENT: Sobolewski, Morrow
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-11-2-53 by
James Horney requesting waiver use approval to allow an existing food
facility (Sunshine Yogurt Plus) to operate as a restaurant on property
located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and
Northland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
10970
Mr. Bakewell 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 the waiver use proposal. We
'`r.. have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they find
the proposal acceptable if a sidewalk is provided along Bethany
Street and a wall or berm is constructed along Bethany to protect
residential privacy. Also in our file is a letter from Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating the following problem was found:
Deficient Parking - This site is under a waiver for deficient
parking. There were 140 spaces required; 123 spaces are provided -
deficient by 13 spaces. We also have received a letter from the Fire
Marshal's office stating they have no objection to the proposed
seating arrangement.
Mr. LaPine: Are they 13 parking spaces deficient now or if they were allowed to
operate as a restaurant?
Mr. Nagy: Accepting the proposal, they would then be by the Bureau of
Inspection deficient 13 spaces.
James Horney: I am part owner. This is my wife, Christine, the owner and operator
of Sunshine Yogurt. For the last three months the problem is the
understanding of what a restaurant is. For the last three months we
have been selling hot dogs. We got a violation notice. That is why
we are here. At this time there have been no problems with parking
at the center. We are not asking to be a full service restaurant.
We are asking to be a limited service restaurant. We just want to
sell hot dogs and chili, which we have been doing for three months
and there has been no problem with parking. People who go to the
"Nu. Secretary of State, which is the biggest user, have slowed down quite
a bit since September. If you go by there it is very vacant during
the day. Secondly, we offer specials like yogurt and a hot dog and a
drink. If a person comes in for a yogurt, he buys a hot dog and a
drink, he would have bought the yogurt anyways because that is what I
am there for originally. The hot dog and chili is to help us make it
through the winter.
Christine Horney: As far as the insufficient parking, I come in about seven o'clock
in the morning. There are three other businesses open. We are
parked in the back not in front. I am the only car that is parked in
the back. All the other people park out front. There is a real
estate office that has at least eight to ten cars every day that park
out front. They also have a back door and back places to park but
the other places don't use these facilities. If you ever go through
and go in the back, there is plenty of parking.
Mr. Horney: We have parking behind the stores and if you drive back there, it is
vacant. Like I say the Secretary of State's business has been quite
down and there is plenty of parking. Most of the people are going
into the Secretary of State's office. It really hasn't increased the
parking problems because we have hot dogs. We just want to sell hot
dogs and chili.
10971
Mrs. Horney: We have a few people who came from the street behind us who received
notices about this petition and they asked what kind of restaurant we
are opening up. We said we are not. They said well what is it
about. We said we just want to sell our hot dogs.
'100' Mr. Horney: We have no problem with the people behind us. Most people come in
and they buy it and they carry it out. I don't see why these two
items make me a restaurant.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Horney, I have no concerns. You have a fine operation. Who is
your landlord?
Mr. Horney: Mike Soave.
Mr. Tent: Have you ever talked to him about the problems. I think that whole
place is overbuilt. There are too many things in there and there is
a problem with parking. There is no reason why you won't have it
next summer. My question to you is if you do have a landlord and you
are saying the people who work there are parking in the front, why
can't he control that.
Mr. Horney: He has told them a couple of times.
Mr. Tent: If he is so intent upon keeping his tenants there, then he should
make provisions that they park where they should park. There is
nothing wrong with your operation but you have a problem there with
parking and he should straighten these things up.
Mr. Horney: The parking is there.
Mr. Engebretson: You mentioned the chili was to supplement the downturn in yogurt
``p sales in the cold weather. I presume you are going to continue
selling the same things in the summer.
Mr. Horney: No. More or less for winter time to get through.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to work any hardship on you from a business point of
view but I have concerns about the overcrowded conditions of the
center. I drive by there several times a day and I have seen some
real heart stoppers right in front of that building. That is a very
dangerous intersection. It is my personal opinion that development
is overused as it now exists and I think you are aggravating that
situation to some minuscule degree and while it may not in itself be
a major problem, taken in isolation each of these individual
businesses that create their share of whatever that element is, taken
collectively it appears that that center is overused. You mentioned
no one parks in the back or on the side. I was there and ten cars
were parked on the side. I am not so sure that is completely
accurate. I am interested in knowing if the process that you use to
prepare this food involves any venting to the outside that would put
odors in the air to the neighborhood? I would make an additional
point that if this petition were granted I would hope it would
include some restrictions on the signage that you have in the windows
because I think your cluttered signage in the windows, which I
10972
understand is there for business, it just doesn't look good so I
would hope there would be some restrictions on the signage in the
windows. You asked why this makes you a restaurant. I am not sure
it makes you a restaurant, but there are some ordinances that
restict what you can do in a yogurt store. That yogurt store went in
Sow there on the basis that it complied with the ordinance as it was
written at the time and you have taken it upon yourself to expand
that, and I don't say that you intended that with any bad intent, but
you became in conflict with the ordinance so that is why you are here
tonight. Our restaurant ordinance is in the process of being changed
so limited seating would be available for businesses such as yours
without the necessity of going through the waiver use and it was
brought about by your neighbor the N Y Deli. I guess the point is I
think this will take care of itself whether this passes or not but
you still have to fit the ordinance with respect to the parking.
Theoretically we can't approve this waiver use because it violates
the ordinance. Through the chair I would like to direct a question
to Mr. Nagy for clarification purposes. The letter from Mr.
MacDonald relative to the deficiency in parking spaces, would it be
your understanding that this calculation of the 140 parking spaces
required takes into consideration all of the existing uses present
today or would this have been when the original site plan was
presented?
Mr. Nagy: The Building Inspecion Department's letter was with respect to their
findings of April 12, 1989. That is when they determined there were
123 spaces provided and they were required to have 140 so they were
deficient 17.
Mr. Engebretson: Am I correct in recalling that the proposed restaurant ordinance
change, doesn't that still require that the parking requirements be
`u. met?
Mr. Nagy: It would require it if it were a stand alone but our zoning ordinance
says group centers are those establishments that have four or more
uses, therefore, it has an increased off-street parking component for
those centers of 1-125. The basis for that is all these broad range
uses are factored into the off-street parking requirement of 1-125.
Once you have four or more uses in your original plan and are
approved as a commercial center, you can have all kinds of stores and
restaurants and even though they might be different types of tenants,
they would meet the off-street parking requirements.
Mr. Engebretson: I have no personal rush to inflict any hardship on you or your
business. On the other hand I am reluctant to see the City continue
to enable the infliction of more and more stress on that neighborhood
even though the neighbors have indicated they weren't concerned about
the fact you were selling chili and hot dogs. The fact of the matter
is the neighbors have seen this property go from having a buffer zone
to a situation where the zoning was changed to a more intense use and
the neighbors were just besides themselves with frustration because
they felt the City had broken faith with them. It seems to me there
comes a time when you have to say enough. I am not so sure this is
the time but there does come a time. The other thing I am concerned
``.
10973
about is the fact that you continue to operate in violation of the
ordinance since getting the violation notice. But you heard earlier
from one of the senior members of the Commission, I am one of the
rookie members. Maybe again Mr. Nagy can clarify to me that that is
customary and I shouldn't be concerned about it.
Mr. Nagy: Once the notice of violation has been issued, they are given a
certain period of time to comply. It is a customary practice. They
are given an x number of days to cease and desist in order to bring
it into compliance. Since they sought to seek relief through the
waiver process, the Ordinance Department has stayed the prosecution
of it.
Mrs. Fandrei: One of our concerns in granting a waiver is the waiver use goes with
the land so no matter what you are planning on serving today, if you
are given a waiver use for a restaurant and you sold that business,
someone else can come in and serve whatever they please. I feel
strongly that this particular strip is overused especially in the
northern portion. You admitted in the summertime there has been a
problem with parking. So giving you this waiver is just going to
compound that, in my view.
Mr. Horney: If I can't make it through the winter time. I employ kids from
Stevenson High School.
Mrs. Fandrei: I appreciate your hardship. I am also in a seasonal business. It is
something that we, who are in seasonal businesses, are aware of the
possibilities of the ups and downs of that business. We have to
anticipate that.
Mr. Horney: I am only asking for two things. Chili and hot dogs.
Mrs. Fandrei: But that is your business.
Janet Conway, 36851 Ladywood: I am about a mile and a half away from Sunshine
Yogurt. I am in favor of allowing Sunshine Yogurt to operate as a
restaurant. I see no conflict with the other merchants. You have
your deli with their sandwiches and you have the pizza place. I can
understand it is a winter survivor item because it is too cold for
yogurt. My concern is with the apparent overbuilding of all the
strip malls, I hate to see another empty building. As I drive
through Livonia I do see a lot of that. I find that in Livonia we do
need a place to have a quick lunch with all the influx of the office
buildings coming into Livonia and I work in Livonia and it is hard to
find a place to get in and out. I find it handy. I understand all
the concerns the difference between yogurt and getting into food but
dealing with a dairy product I know they operate under very sanitary
conditions. I don't see the difference between someone coming in and
sitting down at a table and having a yogurt sundae or just having a
hot dog.
Mrs. Horney: I just wanted to add to the gentleman who said he was by our place at
5:15 and saw about ten cars parked on the side. You will always see
those cars there. They are from the Secretary of State. That is
10974
where those people park. The people from the real estate office they
park out front and they have at least eight cars. Am I to go and
complain about these people all the time? Is that what you are
telling me to do?
fir. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-11-2-53 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
19, 1989 on Petition 89-11-2-53 by James Horney requesting waiver use
approval to allow an existing food facility (Sunshine Yogurt Plus) to
operate as a restaurant on property located on the west side of Newburgh
Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 89-11-2-53 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use will overburden the site due to the increased
activity caused by the introduction of customer seats.
2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the
adjacent and surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Engebretson, Fandrei
NAYS: Kluver, McCann, LaPine, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Sobolewski, Morrow
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
#12-258-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
19, 1989 on Petition 89-11-2-53 by James Horney requesting waiver use
approval to allow an existing food facility (Sunshine Yogurt Plus) to
operate as a restaurant on property located on the west side of Newburgh
Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 89-11-2-53 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the total number of customer seats provided in the restaurant
shall not exceed 18.
*ft.
10975
2) That the signage in the window be limited to 25 per cent of the total
area of the window.
for the following reasons:
"011. 1) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
2) That the proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That the proposed use is consistent with the Planning Commission's
philosophy with respect to the location and nature of eating
establishments as represented by their recommended amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance regarding such uses.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, McCann, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Tent, Engebretson, Fandrei
ABSENT: Sobolewski, Morrow
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-11-2-54 by
S.E.M.M. Co. requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and
seating capacity of an existing restaurant (Senate Coney Island) on
property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and
Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Bakewell 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 the proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their
department finds no objection to allowing the additional seating
space. However, a second means of egress should be considered from
this space to provide additional exiting should an emergency occur.
Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they
have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have in our file a
letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following
deficiencies or problems were found: Deficient Parking - The
proposed expansion will increase the already existent parking
deficiency. They further state the proposed expansion will increase
the deficiency in required parking to the point that it will require
the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
10976
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, in our notes we didn't have this deficiency in parking
because they didn't seem to have this number of seats. But now they
are talking about the entire proposal. I have no objection to the
center that is in operation but in this case here there are only two
alternatives that we can act on. One is to deny it because it does
not meet the zoning ordinance or have the petitioner go before the
Zoning Board of Appeals and have them apply there before they come
—4111. back to us because legally we cannot act on this because it does not
meet the City ordinance. That is the same thing that we ran into at
Middlebelt and Plymouth Road. They had to go before the ZBA because
they did not meet the ordinance. It clearly states that petitioner
has to meet the ordinance before we can act on it. I would suggest
we either send the petitioner to the ZBA or we deny it. Legally we
have to deny it.
Mr. Nagy: If you are asking for my comments, I think the Commission has
scheduled this public hearing and I think you have an obligation to
hear the public's view and to hear the presentation made by the
petitioner. You also have a third alternative and that is to table
it and ask for an interpretation of the ordinance with respect to the
parking. I, personally and professionally, don't agree with the
findings of the Inspection Department. In the prior case, as I
indicated, the off-street requirements of the zoning ordinance for
commercial centers, is one space for 125 square feet of floor area.
With this proposal this center is not being expanded. There is no
additional square floor area. What they are doing is devoting
additional space to sit-down dining. If it were a general retail
store with a single user or three or less users, you take them on an
individual basis. When we have group commercial centers, the
off-street parking has been increased to 1 to 125 so as they come and
go as they are prone to do in these shopping centers, you don't
always have to make that new parking calculation. It is 1 to 125.
That is it. They come and go. Restaurants expand. Restaurants
contract. Hardware stores expand. Hardware stores contract. These
things go on. I professionally dispute the findings of the
Inspection Department. I think your alternative is to hear the
comments of the public with regards to this use and it will be on the
public record and part of the findings of the Planning Commission and
then thereafter table the matter and we will ask for a re-clarifi-
cation from the Inspection Department.
Mr. Tent: We seem to have problems with parking. We have it all through the
City. What do we have to do as a Commission to write some rules
about parking requirements in the City of Livonia? When it pertains
to office buildings. When it pertains to restaurants. I am so tired
of getting into these parking problems. While we can say we don't
agree with people on it. How can we interpret it so we can look at
it at one time and say this applies? Maybe that is another study we
should do.
Mr. Nagy: I think that is a need we should review in our study meeting and
carry on with our public hearing.
Paul Kerr: I work for S.E.M.M.Co. located at 34391 Plymouth Road. On behalf of
r.►
10977
Senate Coney Island they are requesting to increase their square
footage approximately 600 square feet and add 42 seats to their
already prosperous business. Space became available because another
tenant also became prosperous and moved into the unit next door.
That space became available and Senate Coney Island requested to
lease it and to add the seating. That is what the request is.
Regarding the parking, our office is in the same plaza and there are
'011— windows when the parking increases, the number of cars increases, and
that is obviously around lunch time and around dinner time but during
the other times the parking lot is virtually empty, just the average
coming and going from the other tenants. There are some windows
there when parking may come into question from a practical point of
view. A couple of hours at lunch. A couple of hours at dinner.
Other than that, I am in there every day and the parking is never an
issue.
Mr. Tent: I would like to table this item for clarification of parking
requirements.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-11-2-54 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
approved, it was
##12-259-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
19, 1989 on Petition 89-11-2-54 by S.E.M.M. Co. requesting waiver use
approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing
restaurant (Senate Coney Island) on property located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
89-11-2-54 until the study meeting of January 9, 1990.
fir• Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-11-2-55 by
Lakewood Landscaping Corp. requesting waiver use approval for outdoor
storage in connection with a lawn maintenance/snow plowing business
located on the east side of Otterson Court, south of I-96 and west of
Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use. We also have
received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office
has no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter
from the Traffic Bureau stasting there are no objections or
recommendations from their office. Lastly, we have received a letter
from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or
problems were found.
Ns.
10978
Richard Gonzalez, 13590 Otterson Ct. : As has been presented, we want to use the
fenced in area behind the building, which cannot be seen from any
road, to house for storage purposes the things we can't get into the
building. We now have a long trailer there. Our summer materials
are put there during the winter and vice versa. The building next to
us currently has a waiver use and he parks his trucks outside.
r`„ Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Gonzalez, this area is all fenced in?
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is there any lighting?
Mr. Gonzalez: No there is not.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Just from the building?
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you secure this at night?
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You have been parking there in the past?
Mr. Gonzalez: We moved in May 1st and we were unaware of a number of things. First
of all, we were unaware that we needed to file an occupancy permit.
We called regarding outside storage and at that time we were informed
that we were in violation and they told us that not only did we not
have an occupancy permit but we couldn't keep anything outside and it
was at that point that we presented the waiver petition so we could
store things out there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is 120 feet long. So you will have two or three semi's?
Mr. Gonzalez: The largest truck we have is 1/2 800, which is a 8 yard dump. All
the other trucks are pickups. Next to us is a moving company so they
have large trucks and they are parked all around that area. That
area is really surrounded by these other trucks.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You can't be seen anywhere?
Mr. Gonzalez: No. Even if the trucks weren't there, it is not visible from the
main roads.
Mr. Tent: At the study session when we previewed the proposal, we discussed the
maintenance of the area. Did you agree to police up the area and put
everything in the right cubby holes? It does look a mess.
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes. We keep two dumpsters on the site to make sure we clean away
any debris. We don't have any clippings left over that we bring
back.
Mr. Tent: So you don't have any maintenance problem in the back?
10979
Mr. Gonzalez: No. We understand that is a requirement of our waiver use. We
intend to keep it well maintained.
Mr. LaPine: You don't have any nursery stock growing there?
Mr. Gonzalez: No. There could be a situation where, prior to installation of
landscape material, we might bring some material back from the
nursery and it may sit there for a day or two.
Mr. LaPine: Do you keep any railroad ties or dirt stored back there?
Mr. Gonzalez: On occasion that could be a possibility again in relationship to a
job. It would be very minimal. We may bring in a large load of
shredded bark in that fenced in area and then disperse it on the job.
It would not be something that would be housed there for long periods
of time.
Mr. LaPine: I guess I am confused. You have two dumpsters, which leads me to
believe you must have a lot of debris. Can you explain, number one
how large are the dumpsters and how much stuff do you actually bring
back to the dumpsters?
Mr. Gonzalez: We have two 8 yard dumpsters. Pickup is scheduled for one per week.
Every Thursday. The second dumpster is there on call in the event
we do have material that overfills the once a week pickup of one
dumpster, we have someplace to keep it. Any time we would run in
excess of that one dumpster, the other one is just sitting there, so
we pay a service charge and simply call and have it picked up the
next day. Clean ups we might have limbs, trees, branches, etc. If
it is a small quantity, we put it into the dumpster.
Mr. LaPine: I understand your basic business is cutting grass. In the fall do
you rake leaves?
Now
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes very minimal.
Mr. LaPine: Are those leaves brought back to this location and put in the
dumpsters?
Mr. Gonzalez: Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-11-2-55 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
##12-260-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
19, 1989 on Petition 89-11-2-55 by Lakewood Landscaping Corp. requesting
waiver use approval for outdoor storage in connection with a lawn
maintenance/snow plowing business located on the east side of Otterson
Court, south of I-96 and west of Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 89-11-2-55 be approved subject to the petitioner
maintaining the storage area in a neat and orderly manner for the
following reasons:
10980
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with the waiver use standards
and requirements set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
Now 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-11-3-7,
pursuant to Council Resolution #1032-89, requesting to vacate a 12' wide
public easement for public utilities, as established across Lot 31,
Koloff's Greenbriar Meadows Subdivision, located south of Five Mile Road
between Gary Lane and Yale Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21.
Mr. Bakewell 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
there are no City maintained utilities within the subject easement
area. Therefore they have no objections to the vacating proposal.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-11-3-7 closed.
Nifty On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-261-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
19, 1989 on Petition 89-11-3-7, pursuant to Council Resolution #1032-89,
requesting to vacate a 12' wide public easement for public utilities, as
established across Lot 31, Koloff's Greenbriar Meadows Subdivision,
located south of Five Mile Road between Gary Lane and Yale Avenue in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-11-3-7 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect any public
utilities.
2) That no objections to the proposed vacating have been received from
any City department or public utility company.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances.
10981
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. LaPinee, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
Nor approved, it was
#12-262-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final
Plat for Whispering Hills Subdivision to be located on the east side of
Newburgh Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 5 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat is drawn in conformance with the previously
approved Preliminary Plat.
2) That the City Engineer has no objection to approval of the Final
Plat.
3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the
City have been taken care of.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved,
it was
#12-263-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final
Plat for Gill Orchards Subdivision proposed to be located north of Seven
Mile Road east of Gill Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, for the
following reasons:
'44..
1) That the Final Plat is drawn in conformance with the previously
approved Preliminary Plat.
2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat.
3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the
City have been taken care of.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#12-264-89 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 590th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on November 21, 1989 are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Kluver
ABSENT: Sobolewski, Morrow
r..
10982
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-265-89 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 363rd Special Meeting held by the City
New Planning Commission on November 28, 1989 are hereby approved.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved,
it was
#12-266-89 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 591st Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on December 5, 1989 are hereby approved.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
89-12-8-35 by Neumann/Smith and Associates requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct a four story office building with a two story
parking structure on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty
and I-275 in Section 7, until all questions have been answered and results
are brought back from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Engebretson, Fandrei
NAYS: Kluver, McCann, LaPine, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Sobolewski, Morrow
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
##12-267-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-12-8-35 by Neumann/Smith and Associates
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a four story
office building with a two story parking structure on the south side of
Seven Mile Road between Haggerty and I-275 in Section 7, be approved
subject to the variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
deficient number of parking spaces and deficient parking bay size as well
as the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 89190, Sheet 1, dated 12/4/89, prepared by Kenneth
Neumann/Joel Smith and Associates, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to;
v..
10983
2) That Building Plan 89190, Sheets 5 and 6, dated 12/4/89 prepared by
Kenneth Neumann/Joel Smith and Associates, which is hereby approved,
shall be adhered to;
3) That Landscape Plan 89190, Sheet L-1, dated 12/4/89, prepared by
Michael J. Dul Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered
to.
4) That the petitioner shall comply with the request of the Engineering
Department in connection with their letter of December 12, 1989.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, McCann, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Tent, Engebretson
ABSENT: Sobolewski, Morrow
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-268-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by New Horizons Signs and
Designs, Inc. , for a Wall Sign to be located at 29504D Seven Mile in the
Livonia Mall Shopping Center be approved subject to the following
condition:
1) That the Sign Plan for Baby World N' Teens prepared by New Horizons
Signs and Designs, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
Nio. adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 592nd Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on December 19, 1989 was adjourned at 11:07 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
.7)7
'FRa -1(1/1'
nd W. Tent, Secretary
ATTEST: ZAgg `�---
William LaPine, Chairman
jg
1 .