HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-05-09 10631
MINUTES OF THE 578th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
`r. On Tuesday, May 9, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 578th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 50 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski
Herman Kluver Raymond W. Tent James C. McCann*
Jack Engebretson William LaPine
Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Vyhnalek 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
%my 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.
Since Mr. McCann, Secretary, was not present at this time Mrs. Sobolewski acted as
Secretary.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is
Petition 89-3-1-8 by Dr. Jerry Nosanchuk requesting to rezone property
located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Ellen Drive and
Riverside Court in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to P.
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 proposal. We also have a
letter from the Inspection Department stating no deficiencies or
problems were found and their department has no objections to the
proposal.
Dr. Jerry Nosanchuk, 35000 Schoolcraft Road: I am the petitioner. With me is Ron
Sherman.
Mr. LaPine: John, when P.S. abuts residential, will a wall be required?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it will be required except where there might be an easement.
Dr. Nosanchuk: There is an existing screen wall.
10632
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is strictly to increase the parking for your clientele?
Dr. Nosanchuk: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, the parking spaces will they be 10' x 20'?
rnmw
Mr. Nagy: Yes they will.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you been at this location?
Dr. Nosanchuk: Since July 7, 1980.
Peter Taylor, 13987 Riverside: My understanding was when he applied initially for
the building permits and zoning, that request was denied. I would
hope that the board would use the same judgment in this decision.
We currently have an 8 foot wall buffer. I have a swimming pool in
my backyard and the parking lot would increase the odds of the kids
that are already back there knocking things over. There is an 8
foot wall buffer but the parking lot would mean an increase in the
noise levels plus the general congestion.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What are the doctor's hours?
Dr. Nosanchuk: My office hours are eight o'clock in the morning and I am usually
done by three o'clock in the afternoon. I would like to respond. I
was never turned down for this zoning. Initially when the building
was built we had asked for a different type of arrangement here to
build more square footage. What we wanted at that time is what we
now want zoned parking, to have that zoned public service as well,
`r, and that is what was refused. We were never refused parking.
Mr. Nagy: I think the point is that area was all part of the initial rezoning
request.
Mr. Kluver: A question regarding the wall. Is that a masonry wall?
Dr. Nosanchuk: That is a simulated brick wall.
Mr. Morrow: Doctor, you built that wall on the residential property line, is
that correct?
Dr. Nosanchuk: As requested by the City.
Mr. Morrow: But it was not mandated by the City because we do not require a wall
abutting residential. In other words, your property is currently
zoned residential but you choose to go from your residential lot
line to the next adjacent lot line. Is that correct?
Dr. Nosanchuk: I don't remember.
Mr. Sherman: Inasmuch as this entire property was under the Doctor's ownership,
site plan approval was obtained, at that time, to provide a masonry
wall around his perimeter property line. At that time it was zoned
P.S.
�..
Mr. Morrow: I guess the point I am trying to make here is the ordinance requires
that where P.S. abuts residential property, there must be a wall.
10633
You must have gotten the wall waived even though it was your
property and you moved over to the next adjacent lot which meant
that that property became a part of the P.S.
Dr. Nosanchuk: I understand what you are saying but I don't believe it was an issue
at that time. I believe what we initially thought about doing then
was putting in some sort of natural buffer such as trees or bushes.
I believe, I don't remember exactly how it turned out, but we ended
up putting up a masonry simulated brick wall. There was never a
question, at that time, about putting a wall next to the building
Mr. Morrow: Normally we would require a wall to go on your property separating
the P.S. from the residential unless you secured a waiver. I am
just trying to find out what the history was on that because by
putting a wall adjacent to the residential property, it almost made
that residential property part of the P.S.
Dr. Nosanchuk: I understand perfectly I just don't recall.
Mr. Tent: I have a question to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor, were you aware the
Doctor's hours were 8:00 to 3:00?
Mr. Taylor: It is the hours after he is gone. The office is there and
therefore the parking lot is vacant. There are some kids that play
back there and have a tendency to be kids and the parking lot will
just increase the opportunity.
Mr. Tent: You have no problem in the neighborhood now do you? I share your
concern but the type of service he provides it wouldn't be like a
`.• retail store. I would hope these hours would work out very well
with you. I would be in favor.
Dr. Nosanchuk: I basically take care of menopausel women. I have no people running
in and out. We are usually done, occasionally by 6:00, but most
every day we are dons by 3:00. As far as the parking lot adding to
the congestion or people playing there, right now it is a carefully
landscaped green area that people could play football on, etc. It
is very nice. It is a lot of grass. One more thing I would like to
add is if we do get very congested during those hours, the parking
spills out into the street and that is a problem.
Dennis Kinnen, 13993 Riverside: I am off during the middle of week. I work a lot
of weekends and I will find the added noise from the cars offensive.
Also, the doctor just had his place up for sale. How do we know
this is going to stay a doctor's office. What is to say he isn't
going to turn it around and some other business will be in there
with some more cars? Also, if you notice lots 1 and 2 are very
small. This is not an average size lot. This puts that parking lot
right at their back door. We hashed this over before when he
originally rezoned it. He was talking about a buffer zone with
bushes and stuff. When we mentioned to him on whose property, he
said he would put all the bushes you want on your property. That
was his idea. That is why the wall is there.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to clarify where this wall is at the moment.
10634
Mr. Vyhnalek: The wall is right on the property line.
Mr. Engebretson: So the conditions in the backyard of Lot 1 and 2 really do not
change with respect to the space that they have up to the wall. Is
that right?
Mr. Kinnen: No, but the noise will. We get so much pollution now from the
expressway and Schoolcraft without having the cars back right up to
our wall. We don't need any more cars.
Mr. Morrow: If I am following this correctly sir, I don't believe we are adding
to the traffic. We are taking traffic off the street and putting it
in the parking lot. We are not adding traffic. I just wanted to
make that point.
Mr. Kinnen: When he originally petitioned he wanted a much bigger building with
no consideration for the neighbors. He knew what he was getting
into. The place is up for sale. Who's to say he is not doing this
just to sell the place.
Dr. Nosanchuk: I would be happy to respond to that. He is absolutely correct. I
did have the building for sale. I entertained some offers. With
what they offered me I had plans drawn for a new building. When I
found out what the new building was going to cost me, I was very
happy to stay right where I am and I thought it would be better to
just increase the parking rather than move. The sign is no longer
there and it is no longer for sale.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
S.• Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-1-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-90-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-3-1-8 by Dr. Jerry Nosanchuk requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Ellen
Drive and Riverside Court in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to
P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 89-3-1-8 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a means with which
to relieve an existing parking problem in the area caused by an
insufficient number of off-street parking spaces.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will have very little adverse
affect on adjacent residential property in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor extension
of a non-residential zoning district into a residential area.
4) That the wall already exists between the most adjacent residential
property where it is maintained as residential.
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.
10635
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
. Petition 89-4-1-9 by Angelo D'Orazio requesting to rezone property
located south of Eight Mile Road and west of Newburgh Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to R-7.
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
site drainage will be required to be detained on-site in view of the
limited capacity of the existing storm sewer system in Victor
Parkway. Further, there are no sanitary sewers readily available to
service the site.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. D'Orazio, you want to build some condominiums?
Angelo D'Orazio, 35213 Vargo: Yes I do.
Mr. Vyhnalek: These are for sale or rent?
Mr. D'Orazio: For sale.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you purchased this property yet?
Mr. D'Orazio: Yes I have purchased the property.
411ft, Mr. LaPine: Mr. D'Orazio, you heard the report from the Engineering Department
about the sanitary sewers. How are you going to alleviate that?
Mr. D'Orazio: I have to check. If it is in the right of way, we could bring it
up.
Mr. LaPine: I thought the problem with the sanitary sewers was they were not big
enough.
Mr. Nagy: It is not contiguous to the property. He could go south.
Mr. LaPine: How many condominiums would be built there?
Mr. D'Orazio: Approximately around 40 to 45.
Mr. Morrow: I think one of the things that is going to come out tonight if there
are any adjacent property owners, they are probably going to want to
know the price range.
Mr. D'Orazio: Square footage is between 1800 to 2200 and the price range is about
$200,000 to $225,000.
Mrs. Sobolewski: John, about the R-7, what are the maximum or minimum restrictions
for an R-7? What can be built?
Mr. Nagy: Maximum allowable density would be ten units per acre for two
`y bedroom units. Given the size of the units Mr. D'Orazio has
10636
mentioned, the average apartment size is somewhere in the area of
800 to maybe 1200 square feet so with the size of the units
mentioned here, I would estimate the density probably won't exceed
eight to an acre. Since we are talking about a seven acre site, the
114r number that Mr. D'Orazio mentioned is very low and very
conservative and I would easily support that. There is a two-story
height limitation. No building can be constructed higher than two
stories, which is probably 24 to 26 feet.
Mrs. Sobolewski: That would be no taller than a two-story house?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Nancy Gaston, Jahn Drive: I am against the project going in for several reasons.
First of all, there seems to be a few more homes shown on the map
than what there is. Some of the lots are one acre lots with one
house on them. There are approximately 35 homes in our subdivision.
Now this man is going to take seven acres and put in 40 to 45
families. Our area here, within a square mile, has turned into a
smorgasbord. We have residential. We have the two subs over on
Seven Mile and Newburgh and then our subdivision. We have a gas
station. We have the mini mall. We have Greenmead. We have a
proposed post office, the lawyers' office and we have Victor, who is
still undecided on what is going in there. Needless to say the
traffic on Victor Avenue is going to be complex once the buildings
start going up with Victor or whoever else will be building in
there. Chances are there will even be a traffic light there.
Traffic control is a problem now. We have the privacy of the
subdivision. We will be having parking lights. We will be having
traffic from this project that will be affecting our subidivion.
Also, we have some people represented. We haven't a lot of people
from our subdivision because of the past problems we have had with
Council. They don't feel that any of us showing up does any good so
I hope that what we have to say does make some type of impact
because we speak for everyone in the subdivision.
Kip Bonds, 38560 Morningstar: Nancy is a hard act to follow. She said everything
that probably the rest of us are going to say. I really want to
tell you that the people who live in that sub moved out there
because it was zoned RUF and because we like large lots and we don't
like people right next to us. When most of us moved out there we
had the foresight to come down and check the master plan. The
master plan is a shabbles. You moved Victor in behind us. You have
a lawyers' office to the north. We are just asking that you stick
to the master plan. We don't have any problem with it being
developed as houses but to develop it as two-story buildings back
there with dense population, we have a problem with that and we have
a problem with the traffic.
Jim Voigt, 20410 Meadowview: My property backs up to this parcel of land. I am
totally against it for many reasons that have already been
enumerated. I would like it to stay residential. I do not want to
look into a parking lot. I do not want the added traffic. When it
is multiple family residential, then you are never really sure who
is pulling into that parking lot. My property is directly exposed
fir.
10637
to it. As with the Victor project, once you rezone the property you
have no more control over it as far as what is built within the
zoning ordinance. This has already been the case with the Victor
Itim, project. Victor had a beautiful plan but they have already sold out
some of their property. This could be a case here. Once you have
rezoned it with the intention of condominiums, it could be resold
and what would stop them from building apartments? Also, I have
very serious doubts about building anything back there because of
the situation with the storm sewers. I have lived there for ten
years and when you walk through that property, that property stays
wet all year around. Right now, directly east of my house, at the
Victor Parkway Road there is standing water and up until today the
water was running off into Victor Parkway into that minimal storm
sewer. My sump pump runs continuously. I mean every eight minutes.
The reason for this is that the City engineers specify at what level
our basements are put in and unfortunately my basement was specified
six inches too low because if my sump pump goes off within about six
hours I will have six inches of water in my basement. We are on
wells also and our wells are much deeper. I am not an engineer but
I see that where the water comes out of the ground on that piece of
property and just walking back there I would say it is at a level
where the ground water table is right now. A serious concern I
have, as you mentioned, there is minimal storm drainage in that area
right now and I am not sure what this would mean to any type of
building site but it is specified in the plan that the retention
basin would have to be supplied on that property. When you put in a
retention pump, I feel that anything that is done to raise the level
at which the water is presently draining off that property would
Nor have an adverse effect on my home and the other homes along that
street. My concern is what that will do to the water that is
entering my drain field and into my sump pump. Also, all of that
subdivision is on septic tanks. Some of them have had severe
problems already. This again adds to my fears and my concern as to
the way that property is developed. If there were adequate storm
sewers, if there were houses going in with basements that were also
pumping water out of the ground, I would feel much better.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many homes in your subdivision?
Mr. Voigt: Approximately 28 to 30.
Mr. Tent: Jim, I was very concerned with the storm sewers. I was going to
address my question to Mr. Shane. We had a study not too long ago
showing the situation in the area. Did that encompass this area?
Mr. Shane: Yes it did.
Mr. Tent: That is a real major concern and you have covered everything that I
have been concerned about relative to the storm sewer and surface
drainage and to me that is the crux of this whole situation and I
can't see any way we can solve that drainage problem at this time.
I certainly don't want to add to your problems or the problems of
the surrounding neighbors.
`f.- Mr. Voigt: One other thing I might mention. I have talked to well diggers and
they will tell you that water will go uphill.
10638
Mr. Tent: You covered everything very well.
Mr. Morrow: On that same line, was not the Victor development supposed to bring
sewers to that area so that if there were problems in that
particular subdivision, it could be tapped in through the Victor
development.
`r•
Mr. Nagy: Victor is going to bring sanitary sewers in so these people will not
have to rely on their septic tank but the storm drainage Victor
would handle within their own area. Down at Seven Mile Road they
too detain on an on site basis with a big pond and have their own on
site detention.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The church has their own pond for drainage?
Mr. Nagy: At Eight Mile Road.
Doug Wells, 20434 Meadowview: They have mirrored most of my concerns. If you want
to see an artesian turn on the parkway because I do a lot of jogging
and it is a constant flow. My sump pump runs year around every
eight minutes. My basement will fill up about 1 1/2 to 2 feet if I
don't have my sump pump running. I can sit in my family room and
see the renaissance center, the bridge lights to Canada and see the
entire skyline of Detroit. I am certainly concerned your buildings
will obstruct that view but that is a personal thing. I
photographed a deer about a year and a half ago. There is still
some deer in there. I think this is the nicest subdivision in
Livonia. This has been my third house in Livonia and I am appalled
at all the development around here. I don't mind if they sell off
the land but I would like to see some reasonable height
restrictions here. I would like the City to very carefully check
`.. out the water flow. I would be concerned about the density. There
is a lot of density as far as traffic. We are all concerned about
that. This is a rather large area and now you are going to take and
put more on seven acres. It just tends to do away with what I think
is the premium place in Livonia. I want you ladies and gentlemen to
be concerned with what you allow the people to put in there. Maybe
make restrictions as to density. Forty-five is too many. I would
like to see four per acre. I would like to see $200,000 to $250,000
price range.
Joseph Mysliwiec, 20464 Meadowview: I live north of the area in question. The
only thing I would like to point out in echo of what Jim Voigt said
was the water and sewers. I think if this rezoning was to be
considered, as part of it, it should be that the subdivision would
be able to receive water and sewer from that. When you look at the
property values in our subdivision and you look at the amount of
taxes we are paying and we still have to have septic tanks and wells
in the City of Livonia, I think this is the closest the push is
getting to us. We were told that Digital Equipment was going to
build their building in Victor and the sewers were going to be
brought to us from the other end. That seems to be on hold. I
think if this development is going to go, I think part of it should
be that water and sewers be brought to the subdivision from that
side. I am confident that the quality of the construction will
10639
be suitable to the area and enhance the area. The question we have
is the density. How many per acre. I think you ought to consider
that with the height. The other concern I have is when you have an
area of condominiums, at least the recent ones in the City, you have
been screening the parking areas and screening the development with
a nice berm. If the drainage in the area is already poor, if the
water table is such, how in the world are we going to get these
berms constructed and still have adequate drainage. I don't think
we want to look out from our backyard to just see church parking lot
and more parking lot. The other point I don't want to see the
streets open up. We have Meadowview Lane, which is a closed street,
which doesn't go through. We would hate to see them open up that
street and we were promissed a long time ago that wouldn't happen.
Tom Homrich, 10561 Seven Mile, Salem Township: I am Chairman of the Trustees of
Berean Baptist Church. I would like to correct one of the
statements that was made concerning all of the residents of the
subdivision. We do have residents in the subdivision that are not
opposed to the rezoning of this property. Our church parsonage is a
part of that subdivision as well as some of the members of our
church also live in that subdivision and one of their pieces of
property backs up to the seven acre parcel. I think some of the
things we are talking about this evening are legitimate fears or
legitimate questions that the people have brought up but I think
some of that has to do strictly not with the rezoning but with the
development of the property, which would be more site plan than
rezoning. The petition is for rezoning and not the development of it.
`44111, Mr. Vyhnalek: That is all site plan but it gets intermingled.
Mr. Homrich: I realize it does. However, I think it has to be evaluated on the
basis of the request not on the basis of the development. The other
point as far as water problems. They have existed in that
subdivision long before the request was even made for the rezoning
of this property. If the property was not rezoned at this time for
development, the problem of sewers would remain as much of a problem
to those in the subdivision as it is now. We had the problem with
the parsonage and we did have it repaired and new drain fields
installed. We know the problem has been there and it has been ever
since that subdivision has been built. We have felt that to develop
it in this way would be more advantageous because of the commercial
buildings that are going to be developed by Victor to have perhaps
more of a residential character remain than to have the whole area
taken over by commercial type buildings. At one time we looked into
the possibility of what was a rezoning desire so we could make use
of the property instead of letting it lay idle because as a church
we are not able to develop it into an area that would be beneficial
to us. We were told by the City that the rezoning that we could
look forward to would be professional type buildings. If that was
pursued and if that would be approved, the parking and the development
of it would be the same parking wise and perhaps more so if it was
commercial buildings than if it was residential. Probably more traffic
as well. As far as traffic is concerned, I cannot understand the fears
of the people as far as more traffic in the subdivision. The traffic is
going to be following the new Victor Parkway. That was the intention of
the road. Basically, that is our feeling.
10640
Eric Hunt, 38640 Morningstar Drive: I am a resident of the subdivision for 11
years and I feel I need to tell you that I am the listing realtor
for the sale of the property but as a neighbor I would support the
petitioner. From my professional eye this property is probably too
t„` valuable to develop as single home sites. As a resident of this
area I would have been much happier if all the 104 acres that Victor
now occupies had been left alone. I built the Wells' house and I
hate to spoil his view of the renaissance center but progress
marches on. If that doesn't go condominiums, it could go offices as
the City administration changes down through the years but as it is
we have elected to go ahead and put Victor in and as I see it the
site is being professionally developed into an upscale community of
condominiums. We are not going to have a barrage of lights and
parking. As a neighbor I would support the concept. Also as a
neighbor I do have some concerns with the sewer and water problem
and I wish you would be conservative along those lines if you
approve this petition.
Mr. Morrow: You say you live in the area?
Mr. Hunt: Yes I do.
Mr. Morrow: You are in the real estate business?
Mr. Hunt: Yes sir.
Mr. Morrow: As a matter of curiousity, since the Victor plan was approved has
any new construction gone up in the subdivision or is it staying
pretty must status quo?
Mr. Hunt: There has been one house on Jahn Drive on the south side that I know
has been put up and we were in the process of building Mr. Wells'
home and one other on Hickory Lane has been built.
Mr. Morrow: I drive around the City quite often and I recall there was some new
construction.
Mr. Voigt: I was under the impression that the petitioner already owned the
property. Is that correct?
Mr. D'Orazio: Subject to the rezoning.
Mr. Voigt: The reason was because I was under the impression he owned it
already and I was very resentful of the church member being here who
does not live in our subdivision and the point I made about the
drainage, I am not blaming our poor drainage on that property, I am
concerned with the effect of development on that property and also
the parsonage and other church members who are adjacent to that
property and are not here to speak on that.
Mr. Bonds: I have four points I would like to make in rebuttal to statements
that were made. (1) No one in our subdivision was ever contacted
or promised a sanitary sewer extension from Victor. (2) The issue
here is not whether that land is going to be rezoned to commercial
or rezoned to multiple dwelling. It is rather it is going to stay
`.. where it is or rezoned to multiple dwelling. (3) In answer to Mrs.
10641
Gaston's statement, ten houses have changed hands. The people that
are still there fall into two categories. The people who are older
and the people like ourselves who have school children and we want
to keep them in the same school. (4) The statements about traffic.
'tir I don't know how many people here have gotten a ticket trying to
turn into their own subdivision but I make a left hand turn at about
5:00 every night from Eight Mile onto Meadowview and I have received
a ticket for blocking traffic. Now tell me we don't have traffic
problems.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many houses are for sale at this time in there?
Mr. Bonds: Only one that I know of.
Ms. Gaston: The house has been up for sale for a year and it has gone down
$40,000. They cannot get rid of it. I can't say exactly what the
reasons are but it is not because it is not a well maintained home.
Mr. Tent: After hearing all the comments I just wanted to say I feel Mr.
D'Orazio would do a great job. He would put up a quality
development. There is no question in my mind, at this time, about
the quality of what he would put up but my big concern is I can't
see in good conscience how we can compound the problem. The people
that have built the homes have been there for many years and they
have lived with the problem without adding to it. If I could see
where we could solve that surface drainage and the sanitary sewers,
then I would be more inclined to go along with the development. I
think I have no other alternative except to say let's wait and see
what is going to happen. Let's get a definite plan before we are in
Star so much of a hurry to rezone. The petitioner does not even own the
property yet. He doesn't have a vested interest and these people
do. They have homes in there and I feel for them. That is my point
and I wanted to make a statement.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, did the Engineering Department say anything further. Did
they talk to you at all about how difficult it would be to correct
this sanitary sewer and the drainage problem?
Mr. Nagy: The developers of the respective properties have to deal with the
water that eminates from their property. Mr. D'Orazio, as the
developer of this, will have to handle the water and contain the
water within his property. It will have to be metered out at a
reduced rate into the new storm system that is in the Victor
Parkway. That storm system is not designed to handle the storm and
water drainage from the Livonia Hills Subdivision. It was never
intended to be.
Mr. D'Orazio: I am interested in buying the property. Also, the drainage in the
subdivision. All the condominiums will have basements and two car
garage and also have a retention pond with landscape all around. It
will be luxury apartments.
Mr. Tent: I know you are going to put up a fantastic development. My concern
is you have your property contained and I would just like to get the
problem solved for the adjacent area.
\r.
10642
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Tent, I don't know if that can be solved if that P.O. is not
developed on the Victor project.
Mr. Tent: Why must we hurry up and put this thing into effect why can't we go
ahead and see what is going to happen before adding any more
development to the area? I was concerned and Mr. Shane made that
presentation about the storm sewers in that part of the City and it
was kind of alarming to find out that we will have a problem within
the next five or six years. I feel we should address ourselves to
that issue.
Mr. Morrow: To go along with what Mr. Tent is saying that we are sure the water
will be contained on Mr. D'Orazio's site but would that have a
negative affect on the subdivision. Would some of the drainage that
they are getting now be backed up and raise the water table as this
gentleman pointed out. We certainly don't want to even consider the
development of that property to a heavier density if it is going to
cause a negative affect on the subdivision.
Mr. Engebretson: I want to speak in opposition to this petition for many of the
reasons that have been stated by the residents tonight. Most of
them referred to specifically the drain problems, etc. but their
reliance on the future land use plan is something we can't ignore.
The feared domino effect of this Victor project reaching out north,
south, east and west is something that is becoming a reality. I
think, as Mr. Tent has said, there is no hurry. Let's look into
some of these problems. It has also been pointed out this is a
zoning issue and has nothing to do with site plans and density and
so on and with the ordinance as presently written, we could face an
`, issue where Mr. D'Orazio could sell this property and another
developer comes in with something three or four times as dense as
what is being proposed and I think the problem just becomes worse
and worse. At a very minimum I think that we should table this
issue. I think the issue of the sewers and the water situation
needs to be totally understood before we proceed with anything and
if not a tabling issue then I think this petition should be denied.
Mr. LaPine: I believe the points that Jack just made are very pertinent to many
things that have been going through my mind. I would also like to
point out the fact that the residents say they would like to keep
this as single family housing. It is possible this could be
developed with smaller lots, which would mean there would be more
homes than a condominium development may produce. Either way I am
dead against this property being rezoned for any commercial or P.S.
zoning. I think it has to go either R-7 classification or R-1-2-3
classification. All these water problems are very pertinent to the
case. I have lived in a house where I had those problems and it is
not nice. I don't think we have to jump into this. I think we
should sit back and see how the Victor project is developing. I
echo what Jack has just pointed out.
Sam Campbell: I represent the church. I also live in Livonia Hills Estates. We
did not want to sell this land. It is not our desire to sell it. I
have heard a lot of things here tonight. I really think some things
10643
are incorrect here and need to be spelled out. I lost some friends
over this whole thing so speaking now isn't going to make any
difference. That house that is for sale has been for sale for over
a year because the condition is such that nobody wants to buy and
when people don't want to buy a house, the people reduce the price.
Victor hasn't changed the value of my home. As for the drainage
problems, the water goes north to our pond on the east side of the
subdivision. On the northwest corner it goes the other way. It
doesn't go towards the property for sale. I don't see this as a
legitimate argument. We have no water problems where I live. It is
not our desire to sell the land. The church needs to sell the land.
We ran out of money. I hate to hear you talk about tabling this or
denying this. It makes a difference to us. We talked to John and
several other people about what the City would like there before we
decided to whom we would like to sell it and we were told it would
only go for residential, and high rise office or any office was out
of the question. We sought a purchaser, including Victor. They
said they didn't need it but they certainly wanted to know who was
going to get it. They feel it is compatible with what they are
attempting to do. It is not going to bring in a type of people our
neighbors would not want. I am asking consideration here in favor
of, not against, this proposal because of need for one thing but I
don't believe everything here was exactly as represented. I too
have to come in and out of that subdivision and face all the
problems everyone else does. Everybody is moving forward. I see no
reason to stop us from moving forward. There are some problems said
to be there which really aren't as great as people would like to
make it seem.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How long has the church been there?
Mr. Campbell: Since February of 1981.
Mr. Tent: I am sympathetic with what you are saying about the need but I, as
one commissioner, can't compromise what I feel is good for the
community because the church has a problem and they want to dispose
of the property. I just want to emphasize the fact that while you
probably have a problem financially this would affect the whole
community.
Mr. Homrich: I would like to ask a question as to what the property was
originally zoned where Victor International is building their
development. Was that not residential as well.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I believe it was.
Mr. Homrich: So the problem that has been created has been created by the change
in zoning for Victor International and not the seven acres we are
asking for rezoning.
Mr. Kluver: The Victor project did bring into fact Victor Drive and also has
allowed the fact to make that particular piece of property available
for development. Had Victor not been there, that piece of property
would have been landlocked.
`.
10644
Mr. Homrich: The property would not have been landlocked because there was
already an easement.
Mr. Kluver: However, if Victor wasn't there, would you have developed it?
Mr. Homrich: Yes, we would have developed it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-1-9 closed.
On a motion duly made Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-91-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-4-1-9 by Angelo D'Orazio requesting to rezone
property located south of Eight Mile Road and west of Newburgh Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to R-7, the City Planning
Commission does hereby table Petition 89-4-1-9 until June 6, 1989 for
the purpose of fully investigating this matter with respect to some of
the items that the residents have expressed concern about. We would
also seek support from the City Engineering Department to give us their
conclusions as to what the real situation is out there and the
petitioner will have the opportunity to do the same.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Kluver: I would like to invite also at that study session the Assistant City
Engineer and/or the City Engineer to qualify whatever analysis they
make regarding the sanitary storm situations that would crop up and
``, also a comparison of development of what we are potentially looking
at, which the future land use has already called out for versus what
potentially we can look at and how that would contiguously develop
within the site.
Mr. Morrow: I ask that the comments be made available to the Engineering
Department so they can come prepared to respond to the public
comments tonight.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-3-1-7 by McDonald's Corporation requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann
Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1
to C-2.
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
there are no water mains or sanitary sewers readily available to
service the site. Further, Ann Arbor Road has not been dedicated to
its fullest extent (60' ) adjacent to some portions of the frontage
of the site.
`rr
10645
Alan Helmkamp, 16832 Newburgh Road: I am here on behalf of McDonald's Corporation.
Hopefully you saw the petitions that were brought in representative
of 14 of the surrounding businesses that signed the petition in
support of the rezoning. I think there is an attitude there that
perhaps we could help out with business down there. Beyond that I
would reserve any time we have to respond to any questions or
comments from the audience.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is going to be a typical McDonald's?
Mr. Helmkamp: I wouldn't want to say typical. I would say in terms of the
architectural treatment of the site, it would be modern with a glass
front treatment.
Mr. LaPine: This will have a drive-thru window?
Mr. Helmkamp: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: How will the drive-thru go?
Mr. Helmkamp: It will be Ann Arbor Road to Ann Arbor Road.
Mr. LaPine: What is the seating capacity?
Mr. Helmkamp: 102.
Mr. LaPine: How many employees.
Mr. Helmkamp: I would like to call on Mr. Whitman of McDonald's Corporation to
'tow answer the technical questions.
Bernie Whitman of McDonald's Corporation: There will be a total of full time and
part time employees of up to 85.
Mr. LaPine: At this point you do not know who is going to be operating this
McDonald's?
Mr. Whitman: We call it awarding the operation and it has not been decided.
Mr. LaPine: This is being built by McDonald's and they will lease it out to
whoever you decide it is going to be awarded to?
Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Helmkamp, is there one in the area that will be like this
one?
Mr. Helmkamp: There is one in Ann Arbor that is very similar.
Mr. Whitman: It will open on the 18th.
Mrs. Sobolewski: What makes this more unique:
Mr. Whitman: It is a larger facility with more modern seating. The decor is
modern. There is adequate parking and adequate landscaping.
10646
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to make sure if there is anybody in the audience on
this to understand what we are doing here tonight is we are rezoning
the property from a C-1 to C-2, which is setting the stage to come
back for waiver use approval at which time we will get into the
actual use of the property and the site plan so that will come at
,fir another public hearing under waiver use. Right now we are just
looking at more intense zoning.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-1-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-92-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-3-1-7 by McDonald's Corporation requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor
Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 89-3-1-7 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor extension
of an existing C-2 district in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land
Use Plan which recommends general commercial land use for the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
fir• 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-4-1-10 by Antell Partnership requesting to rezone property
located north of Schoolcraft Road and east of Middlebelt Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from P.S. to C-2.
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 proposal.
Tom Guastello, Owner of Buckingham Office Park: I would like to show the Planning
Commission several items. We have first of all a proposed site plan
for the project that indicates in a little more detail the
developments that have occurred on the property. I am the owner of
the property.
Mr. Guastello displayed the site plan.
`rm.
10647
Mr. Vyhnalek: Why don't you tell us what it is going to be.
Mr. Guastello: The development will be a 102 unit property that caters to business
travelers. The brand name of the property is Comfort Inn. It will
be a property that is tailored to the environment. We look at the
,` Jeffries Freeway, the two very excellent halls that are located
there and the business corridor that we have between the Jeffries
and Plymouth Road. We have very positive studies on that and what
we are trying to do is a unified development in the office area.
We have a sister property that we have photos of that is by Lakeside
Mall, which I have built and I am the owner of. Mr. Mike Walker is
here with me. He is the General Manager of the Lakeside property.
He would become the area supervisor of these two properties. To
orientate you to the site, and it has changed a great deal, we have
Chi Chi's, which was the first development. We put in the Olive
Garden. Then we put in the two office buildings that are fully
constructed. One is 100% leased and the other is 50% leased. We
just completed two more buildings. One building is the HMO.
Mr. Guastello made a presentation of the site improvements he is proposing.
Mr. Guastello: There would be no restaurant and no bar. You would get a
complimentary breakfast. We would have two meeting rooms. The
largest room holds 16 and the smaller room holds 10 people. We
would like to be a part of this community.
Donna Brierley: I live behind the property that has already been developed. This
was our threat when these buildings were zoned P.S. - If you don't
want this property rezoned, then I can come in and put in hotels and
motels. Now we backed off. You people, the City Council, you don't
care that everyone in the subdivision is opposed. We are going
ahead and rezone and we still have our threat. From my bedroom we
have put in tinted windows to cut the lighting problems. We have
put in vertical blinds plus we have put up fencing. We have spent
more money than we will ever get back. When I mentioned to Mr.
Guastello that we were having a difficult time with the property
because he now has coach lights on the building, very courteously he
shut off the second building's coach lights as a courtesy to me. I
know that is not going to stay off forever. I think it was just to
keep me quiet and keep me calm for this meeting because I had no
idea it was coming. After they cleared the property, I now see the
hospital, the parking lot, the DRC as well as the Jeffries. During
winter we had problems with them blowing snow. You have cleared it.
You have approved so many problems. I am livid that you are
actually considering this. I can't believe people would even
consider putting a three-story building in a residential area. The
HAP clinic I happen to work at. It is not over two stories. Chi
Chi closes at two o'clock in the morning. The customers of the
Oliver Garden are gone by two in the morning. You come in and you
say the lighting is going to be this way. Three weeks later, I
don't care what your site plan is, the buildings are the same, the
lighting is the same. Forget I live there. If you pretend you are
driving through and look at this piece of property, it is a very
small piece of property. It cannot hold a motel and if it can it is
10648
not going to run full. Less than a half mile we have a Super 8
Motel. It is never full. We had neighbors that were involved in a
drug bust. From what we were told she was doing a lot of her
business out of that hotel. We don't need another motel in the area
that close. You are talking about widening Middlebelt Road. That
gar. traffic is so bad the Mayor has already gotten us a no right turn
sign. Mayor Bennett has already done that for us at our request
because you can't get out of our subdivision now. When that is all
built, can you imagine the traffic, the pollution, the noise, let
alone a 24-hour operation. I don't see how you can do it to us.
Mr. Guastello asked me why don't you move if you can't take it
anymore. He was polite about it and I said if I could, I would be
the first one out of my sub. We have lost $10,000 to $15,000 on our
homes in our area simply by what is behind us now. As you see there
aren't very many of us here tonight because they all said it is a
waste of time. The thing what hurts the most, when Mr. Guastello
came to us about developing the property, I was his biggest ally
saying yes we have to have progress, we have to move on. See where
it got me. Once you let them rezone property, you let them put the
foot in the door and then you keep getting shoved and shoved until
there is no place to go and I am afraid there is nothing to do but
take the loss.
Ron Batog, 29125 Perth: I would be facing the motel, which is a three-story motel.
I don't think it should be. This is for professional service and I
think provessional service buildings should go in there. My
brother-in-law is a police officer in Redford Township and he says
we are going to get drug dealers. We are going to get prostitutes.
You are going to have bookies in there. You have the Olive Garden
and you have Chi Chi's. Now these prostitutes are going to be at
the bar in the lounge picking up customers to take them back to that
motel. We just had a drug raid and I don't think that is right to
have a motel there. There is going to be a doctor's office right
behind my house so if you have a drug addict in the motel, he is
going to break into the doctor's office where you have drugs. To me
it is a bad location plus you have the Super 8 Motel, which is never
crowded. Plus it is three stories. They are going to see my kids
playing in my back yard. I lost $15,000 on my home because of this.
Greg Malnar: I own one of the original houses in the subdivision. That acreage
was originally zoned as multiple dwelling with commercial along
Middlebelt and Jeffries access. It was switched to professional
service. The buildings put in now are not fully occupied. One is
partly up and one is under construction. The wall that was put up
is a six foot brick wall. The lighting is constant. Everything
that was said that was going to be done has not been done. I would
like for you to go by that area and you tell me where you would put
a 103 unit hotel. I have lived there for over twelve years now. As
far as the greenbelting goes once again I would like you to go down
there and see what he has done with the greenbelting. I have a six
foot wall and I am looking directly into the office building.
Before you do anything come and see what his greenbelting is. It is
next to nothing. Once again we have lived there twelve years. We
have conceded and went back and forth and let him have his way.
Again, I would like for you to see what he has done so far before
you let him go general rather than professional.
`..
10649
Mr. Tent: I have a question for Mr. Nagy. You gave us an engineering report,
how about a traffic report. Has Lieutenant Thorne issued us a
letter?
Mr. Nagy: No he has not. Not on a zoning change.
Mr. Tent: Would it be possible for him to consider the traffic situation.
Mr. Nagy: I would be happy to seek such a report.
Mr. Tent: I recognize this is a zoning change but it does affect the traffic
in the area. I would like to consider that as part of my decision.
Mr. Nagy: I think if I could comment on that. I think that is why the
Engineering Department has requested that Middlebelt Road be
widened. There are three lanes from Schoolcraft to the drive that
is just north of Chi Chi's Restaurant and then you are forced to
taper back into two lanes. What is proposed now is that Middlebelt
be widened. That there be an additional through lane extended north
from the drive on the north of Chi Chi's to the drive on the north
of the Olive Garden and then there will be a new taper section of
250 to 350 feet in order to allow that traffic to merge back in the
two lanes to the north. So that kind of traffic analysis has
already been taken into account for plan improvements for Middlebelt
Road that are needed. That will be the developer's responsibility.
Mr. Tent: Is a three-story building permitted in a C-2 zoning?
Mr. Nagy: There is a 35 foot height limitation in a C-2.
r,r• Mr. Tent: This is 36 feet he is talking about.
Mr. Nagy: He will have to reduce the height to two levels. You need some type
of relief. The ordinance does make exceptions for mechanical
equipment, penthouses, etc.
Mr. Morrow: The petitioner has heard some comments relative to lighting and
landscaping. I wonder if you have any comments.
Mr. Guastello: The issue of the lighting. We have adjusted our parking lot lights
on five occasions in the area. The last occasion was in the middle
of the summer when we had a light truck there at night to adjust the
lighting. We have set a independent timer on the coach lights so as
to turn down the lights so they would not be intense. It is exactly
like a light you would have on a back porch. As for the
landscaping - We have landscaping that we put in at the start of the
summer. Mr. Hacker was our construction superintendent. I think he
did a heroic job in fighting the very high temperatures and we were
able to save about 90% of our landscaping that does meet the
requirements of the City. We have had, as of last week, the nursery
out and we have graded the entry way on Buckingham Drive and we are
in the process of replacing those few trees that have died in the
Phase I development. In the Phase II development we are getting in
our underground sprinklers and landscaping and think we can do a
h..
10650
good job on that. As you know, the fence requirement is five foot
and we put a in six and seven foot wall behind the development.
Their homes are built on a crown so some of the homes can see over
the wall. As to height requirements - The figures I gave you was a
top end figure and I understand 50% of that roof is not considered
`` height. We can come within the 35 foot requirement. We would be
part of a national chain. It would be a major development. We do
not encourage, we do not intentionally allow people of ill repute
into our facility. We would not encourage nor would we allow any
illegal activities and if we suspected those things we would want to
root them out because it would affect our establishment before it
hurt the neighborhood. We cater to the business travelers and what
we count on for a 12 month basis. We are not interested in catering
to the Ladbroke facility. We are interested in catering to the
corporate community and to the traffic that would be generated by
the halls and the neighborhood needs of the City of Livonia. There
are no other, what we think, motels in our class along the Jeffries
Freeway and we think that is an important location for that type of
facility and we have done a very thorough feasibility study. The
one other point I would like to make is we think it would be a
harmonious blend of traffic because our traffic can also use the
Middlebelt exit and in addition to that classically our traffic has
a check in period of 6:00 p.m. In the morning we leave at a little
different time than the traffic patterns that are generated by the
existing office as well as the existing restaurants there so we
would hope it would be a harmonious use to the community.
Mr. LaPine: What was the total units that would be in this motel?
Mr. Guastello: 102 units.
Mr. LaPine: I think 2.12 acres is small to put a building of this magnitude on.
That is my personal opinion. Show me how they get into this
building. Are they going to use the same road as they use for the
Olive Garden?
Mr. Guastello: We will have three basic ways to enter into the facility. One would
be to take the Jeffries Freeway or get on Middlebelt and come down
Buckingham Avenue. The other way of entering would be to go
between Chi Chi's and the Olive Garden to the facility. The third
way would be to go through the Chi Chi's lot and go into facility.
Mr. LaPine: How will you be able to control parking strictly for the motel? In
my opinion, both Chi Chi's and the Olive Garden don't have enough
parking. Consequently, people driving in there going to those two
facilities, if this motel is built, if they can't find a place to
park, they will find a parking space at the motel. How are you
going to control that?
Mr. Guastello: We control the parking at the motel by taking license plate numbers
and if we find a car that isn't there, we act accordingly. In
addition to that, we have in center of area increased parking in
now. If we were to lose a few spaces it would not hurt us. We feel
we would have over the quota of parking.
10651
Mr. Tent: Mr. Guastello, have you had any dialogue with the neighbors in the
area? We have had three of them here today and they have indicated
their displeasure and if you talked to them, have you talked to any
more people in the area because it has always been a controversial
issue in that location and the neighbors were very outspoken how the
property should be developed and I am curious if you have approched
any of them with this particular project.
Mr. Guastello: With the entire office complex we have had a continuing dialogue
with the neighbors. I assure you I have their phone numbers and
they have mine. We did not specifically go over this plan because
it is not adacent to any of this development and we felt it was
adequately shielded. We tried to be as responsive as we can to
their concerns but I think at an earlier meeting one of the real
dilemmas we found ourselves in was buying a very pastoral wooded
property that would have made an excellent park. Unfortunately, we
replaced the park with an office park which is a little bit
different and I think if I were a neighbor I would be resentful of
losing the trees and forest and other things. However, I think this
is the property that is across from the Schoolcraft Freeway and I
think if you look at the aerial photo the development of this piece
is appropriate to the development of all the other pieces along that
property. We have tried to do that in a responsible way. We are
going to soften the motel setting. At that time we will have a
number of occasions to work with the neighbors.
Mr. Tent: You are amendable to making adjustments where required?
Mr. Guastello: Absolutely.
Mr. Tent: A comment was made that the landscaping has gone downhill. Do you
have any plans to go ahead and take care of that?
Mr. Guastello: The original development was put in, and that is buildings #1 and
#2, last summer and as you know it was a record setting summer and
we did, and Mr. Hacker did, and outstanding job of watering. We are
in the process now of getting our sprinklers in and we have learned,
based on last summer, that you put your sprinklers in first and then
your trees and we will do that and we will go back and retree the
development in an effort to cooperate as much as possible. We even
planted some trees at the request of some neighbors.
Mr. Tent: The coach lights. Are there plans on turning them on in a couple of
weeks? Can you correct that condition:
Mr. Guastello: I think as we see the condition of the coach lights we think a
minimal amount of lighting is necessary for all of the people. It
is our hope on those that we will keep them at a low wattage and we
will keep them at a low time period. We would like to keep them on
until 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. In other developments we have kept them on
until midnight thinking that a lot of the kids go away but at the
request of the neighbors we would keep them on until 9:00 or 10:00
and then turn them off.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Is there any other access except from Buckingham?
10652
Mr. Guastello: There is access between Chi Chi's and the Olive Garden. That is a
private drive.
Mrs. Sobolewski: No access from Schoolcraft?
r" Mr. Guastello: The Schoolcraft access would be through Chi Chi's.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I just worry about the intensity of this project.
Mr. Guastello: The one thing you have to visualize is we are able to offer a very
high quality room at a very reasonable price. We do not have a
restaurant and bar that you associate with motels and as a result of
that our traffic count is diminished greatly.
Mrs. Sobolewski: It is hard to see that. What I see is a great big sign. I see
big cable TV antenna. I just worry that the use is too intense.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Guastello, was it your original intent to build a fifth
office building on that site?
Mr. Guastello: Before we had the benefit of enlightenment from the new Mayor, who
served on Council, it was our intent to build nine office buildings
on that site. We have drastically revised that. We did intend to
build another office building there but we reduced the density
considerably and increased the parking.
Mr. Engebretson: Considering four of the buildings are constructed on this one
empty area. would it be safe to say if you weren't to construct this
motel, you would probably construct an office building?
Mr. Guastello: I am not sure what we would construct there. We are not overwhelmed
by demand for offices in Livonia at this time. It is a tough market
out there. I think we have constructed as many office buildings as
the market will permit at this time. If the office market were to
change, maybe perhaps we could.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the statistics would support your conclusion there. I am
very much concerned about the traffic on Middlebelt Road or sneaking
through Chi Chi's. You are well aware of the concern in that regard
and I am going to suggest that you look at developing straight
through access from the Schoolcraft Service Drive because I would
anticipate there would be some problems going through Chi Chi's.
Mrs. Brierley had raised the point earlier that I would like to be
enlightened on. It is my understanding that she made reference to
traffic being restricted at Middlebelt Road. Did I misunderstand
that?
Mrs. Brierley: We went to the Mayor because we couldn't get out of our subdivision.
We can't get out of our sub because of the two restaurants and HAP
and the people who are currently in Mr. Guastello's buildings so we
went to Mayor Bennett and he put up a no right turn sign. He also
assured us this property would never be commercial. The major
problem was the lights. The second time they adjusted the lights
during the day. The third time they adjusted them at night. About
the fifth time they were done properly. He tells you exactly what
you want to hear. He is very soft spoken and he is very
intelligent.
10653
Mr. Engebretson: I think we all share concern as to the potential illegal
activities that sometimes go on in motels and Mr. Guastello probably
more than anyone else. I would like to add to Mr. Tent's request to
the Police Department to comment on the traffic situation. I would
like to ask them what the City's experience is in hotels. I would
like to know if this is a potential problem. Because if this motel
were to be constructed, it is very near a residential area, not that
it would be any less of a concern if it were in a commercial area,
but I think it is a question that is every bit as important as the
traffic situation.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-1-10 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was
#5-93-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-4-1-10 by Antell Partnership requesting to rezone
property located north of Schoolcraft Road and east of Middlebelt Road
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from P.S. to C-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby table Petition 89-4-1-10 until June 6, 1989, at
which time we should have the information requested from the Police
Department.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine
NAYS: Morrow, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: McCann, Fandrei
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-3-2-22 by Louis Ronayne requesting waiver use approval to
establish a landscape contractor's yard and recreational vehicle storage
facility on property located on the west side of Farmington Road between
Schoolcraft Road and the C. & 0. Railroad in the Northeast 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
the legal description contained on the petitioner's plan meets with
the approval of their office. We also have a letter from the
Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire, stating their office
has no objections to its development contingent upon the
installation of an approved water supply and on site hydrant within
450 feet of the west property line. Also in our file is a letter
from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following
deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The entire lot is required
to be paved. 2. The required lighting is not indicated on the plan.
3. There is a 3rd waiver use proposed, that of semi-trailer storage.
That is the extent of our correspondence. With respect to the
10654
problems and deficiencies the plan has been corrected. The entire
lot is now going to be hard surfaced paved and there is outdoor
lighting now shown on the plan and the semi-trailer storage is now
totally eliminated from this proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It looks like you have complied with most of our requests.
Mr. Kluver: On the site plan can you show the total number of vehicles to be
stored. You have x amount of square footage. Logistically you
could store so many vehicles. I would like to see that on the site
plan.
Dave Alexander, 45051 Parchment Drive: That would be 100 vehicles.
Mr. Nagy: There are parking spaces delienated but it is hard to tell because
of the varying length of recreational vehicles but the number of
parking spaces are shown in the areas that legally describe it.
Mr. Kluver: What I am trying to say is on the site plan can you show the number
of parking spaces and/or can you show the number of vehicles?
Mr. Alexander: That is on the plan.
Mr. Nagy: There are 100 parking spaces.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-2-22 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted,
*tar it was
#5-94-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-3-2-22 by Louis Ronayne requesting waiver use
approval to establish a landscape contractor's yard and recreational
vehicle storage facility on property located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Schoolcraft Road and the C. & 0. Railroad in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-3-2-22 be approved for
the following reasons:
1) That the Site Plan dated 7-1-88, as revised, prepared by Basney &
Smith, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of 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.
10655
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-3-2-23 by JRJ Group, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
construct an activities hall addition to St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox
Church located on the east side of Merriman Road between Six and Seven
Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11.
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
Ihseedleriedrestioencitell.theThpeelnerimind
iption contained on the petitioner's plan meets with
he apval this office. We also have received a letter from
he Detmenof Public Safety, Division of Fire, stating their
ffices nobjections to its development. Also in our file is a
etterom tTraffic Bureau stating the proposed parking layout
s satacto . They recommend that the drives have 20 foot radii
nsteaf th15 foot shown, and further that a tangent design be
n the curved design. They also recommend a six foot
sidewalk be provided on the Merriman Road right-of-way. We have
also received a letter from the law firm of Wood and Wood
representing Mr. and Mrs. Gary K. Bidle, who reside at 18234
Merriman Road, stating their objections to this petition and asking
that the Planning Commission deny the waiver use.
Ron Jona, 30445 Northwestern, Farmington Hills: I am here tonight in the capacity
as the architect representative for the church and we have Fr.
George here to address some of the issues. I can give you the
background. Fr. George approached me about six months ago and
discussed wanting to create an activities center for the parish. At
that time we began site plans for that parcel and I used the Livonia
zoning ordinance to plan out the parking and we think everything on
the site plan is according to ordinance. We feel this is a very
good use for that parcel. We are only bordered by the one neighbor
and the school as you can see. The issue John mentioned about the
parking can be addressed rather easily. We plan to do that.
Mr. Morrow: What would be the capacity of this activities building?
Mr. Jona: There are going to be six classrooms and there is going to be a hall
that would accomodate in the neighborhood of 400 people and other
activities of that nature and joins directly with the existing
church.
Mr. Morrow: How many parking spaces?
r„r,
10656
Mr. Jona: We have 300 cars required and we have 354 cars provided for.
Mr. Morrow: What is membership of church?
Fr. George: We have 350 families.
Mr. Morrow: One of the concerns is the use of that activities building.
Certainly it is not unique to have an activities hall connected with
church operations. One of the concerns is if we have a waiver with
a residential area, we would certainly not like to see a commercial
type of operation. I guess I would have to have that made a part of
the record tonight that there is no intent to commercialize this but
it would be strictly in conjunction with the church activities.
Mr. Jona: That is correct. That is the intent of the hall. It will be used
for showers and weddings. This is the capacity needed.
Mrs. Sobolewski: You are saying that specific use of this activities hall will be
for the parishioners.
Mr. Jona: Yes, for the use of the church and parishioner related activities.
That was my understanding.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What do they do now?
Mr. Jona: Off premises. Nothing can be held on site currently.
Mr. LaPine: You can assure us that this is not going to be a rental where anyone
who wants to rent that hall can rent it? It will only be members of
the church and family members?
Mr. Jona: Fr. George has assured me of that. They feel they have enough
parishioners and enough activities. I don't know that some of the
events the church sponsors that the public will come to like bake
sales and pot lucks. There will be some activities that will
include residents in the Livonia area.
Fr. George: We have an annual fair.
Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to that. What I am saying is we have other
halls in the City that are required to be in commercial areas to be
rented out. It would be a disadvantage to them if you were
operating a commercial venture here and renting this out to generate
money. I guess that is the point that is very important to me and
some other members of this board. The 354 parking spaces that you
alluded to. That is strictly for the activities hall and there is
additional parking for the church?
Mr. Jona: That is the total on site. We feel it is going to be staggered.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That P.L. Are you buying that from the school district?
Mr. Jona: It has been bought.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It has been bought but the zoning has not been changed?
10657
Mr. Jona: I have applied for rezoning. It has just been brought to my
attention that was still P.L. from I don't know how many years ago.
Fr. George: Seven years ago. The City stated it should only be used for parking
and we forgot to change it.
Mr. Morrow: Did you purchase this from the City or from the school?
Mr. Jona: From the school district.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, this rezoning is coming up when?
Mr. Nagy: The zoning change is scheduled for the June public hearing.
Mr. Jona: What I am asking is if we can get approval tonight with the
contingency of the approval for the rezoning.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What about the handicap spaces?
Mr. Jona: I have to blame myself for that. I haven't seen the calculations.
As soon as I produce that calculation, I will have no problem going
ahead and increasing that number.
Mr. Nagy: Because there is surplus parking on the side.
Mr. Tent: There were several items mentioned in the reports. The sidewalks on
Merriman Road - are you amenable to having the sidewalks installed?
Mr. Jona: Yes we understand that will be part of our responsibility.
'41s'' Mr. Tent: As far as landscaping, everything that was requested, you will bring
that in with preliminary site plan drawings?
Mr. Jona: Yes.
Mr. Nagy: Your petitioner has a site plan attached to his waiver use request.
If you want to grant approval contingent upon rezoning then site
plan approval would have to be made subject to proposed change of
zoning.
Mr. Tent: This should go back to our next session. I would like to see the
final stages so I know what I am voting on.
Mr. Engebretson: Isn't there a more basic issue here? The notes refer to the
necessity of dealing with the zoning of the public land to parking
before this proposal and so aren't we required to put the matter off
until we have dealt with that or can it be dealt with contingent as
Mr. Jona has requested?
Mr. Vyhnalek: It could be dealt with subject to.
Mr. Morrow: What would be the hardship to schedule those simultaneously?
Mr. Jona: There would be no hardship. I was unaware that the rear portion
that was bought from the school board was zoned PL and with private
10658
ownership it can't be zoned P.L. and then when I submitted this
waiver use Mr. Nowak informed me this has never been rezoned, so I
worked with him to get it and I was hoping for a concurrent hearing.
I don't think time is always something to consider. I don't think
St. Mary's or myself has a problem.
+4111,
Mr. Morrow: We are removing it from the public land classification and you want
to put it into some other classification. I think that is what we
are saying.
Mr. Jona: Mr. Nowak and I put it in R-3. That is what he recommended to me as
part of the waiver use for the activities hall.
Mr. Nagy: Churches are waiver uses in residential. It is literally surrounded
by residential. You could argue that is spot zoning. Plus the
requirements of a wall would come into play because you have
parking, a commercial lot next to residential and you have to deal
with the screen wall and you really don't have a commercial parking
lot but the ordinance doesn't distinguish between that. It just
makes sense to deal with it as a residential zoning and have a
waiver use which you can condition on.
Mr. Morrow: We have a petition that will be coming up in June. Is that request
residential or parking?
Mr. Nagy: The petition is for residential. The reason why the two are not on
the same hearing is waivers only require seven days public hearing
notice but there is not a zoning change here because the zoning
change is an ordinance change for the City of Livonia and requires
at least fifteen days advance notice so the two could not be tracked
New
at the same time.
Paul Lay, 37000 Grand River Avenue: I represent Mr. and Mrs. Gary Bidle. They
live at 18234 Merriman Road. They have been residents there for over
ten years. Their property is located immediately north of the area
which is part of the rezoning where this parking is going to be
located. My clients live on approximately 4 1/2 acres and it is
zoned R-5 and R-3. It is my understanding that the proposed
activities building would be constructed to the north of the church.
According to the plans I reviewed, the church fronts on Merriman
Road approximately 70 feet. With the addition of this activities
hall from one end to another it would be approximately 200 feet,
which is almost three times the frontage as it presently exists.
This is basically a residential community. To the north, over to
the west and then to the south it is residential. There is no
commercial. There is no industrial all up and down Merriman Road
until Six and Seven Mile Road. The only two things that are not
residential would be the church and the school. One of the major
objections that my clients have is that in reviewing the plan we
noted that almost all of the parking spots proposed by the church
would be all along the north edge of the church property. All of
this, 200 x 400, would be used for parking and that is all adjacent
to my client's neighboring property. This is residential. This is
zoned for one family residential and believe me my clients are not
Nora.
10659
anxious to have over 300 parking spots adjacent to and right next to
their home. We feel as though it would be a demeanition in value of
the property because of the way this church is going to be
expanded and particularly because of the way this large parking area
is going to be developed. We are concerned about the alcohol
aspects of this situation. We had a problem a few years ago when a
fair took place. My clients for days after the fair was over were
cleaning up beer bottles, beer cans and other debris that the fair
goers deposited on my client's property. We are concerned about
what is going to take place after people leave the activities hall
and go out in the parking area and our client's property is adjacent
to that. We just feel that this entire proposal is too large and we
feel as though it's really inappropriate to have this large parking
area as far as our clients are concerned. For this reason we would
request that this proposal be denied.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What does your client have back on his property?
Mr. Lay: It is all vacant.
Mr. Vyhnalek: He does not grow anything?
Mr. Lay: He has a garden there.
Mr. LaPine: Can you tell me where the parking is now for the church?
Mr. Lay: I believe there is no parking whatsoever near where my client's
property is located. It is more centrally located around the
church.
rNew Fr. George: I am the pastor of that church.
Fr. George pointed out where parking is now.
Mr. Vyhnalek: On your new site plan what is the greenbelt.
Fr. George: We will keep it ten feet.
Mr. Lay: I also wanted to talk about the nuisance aspect. We visualize that
after these showers and wedding parties and activities that take
place, people will be going out to the parking lot and my clients
undoubtedly are going to be disturbed by some of that noise. We
feel as though this waiver that is being requested, as far as the
200 x 400 foot public land aspect, should be denied. We feel as
though this whole scheme is too large and for that reason we are
asking that this council deny the request of the petitioner.
Rick Chavey: We live directly on the other side of the street on Curtis Road. I
am representing my mother and father who couldn't be here tonight.
They wrote a letter to the council. Basically we support the church
in what they would like to do. I understand they have problems too
but the church has been good neighbors and so have the Bidles.
Mr. Chavey presented the letter from his parents to the commission.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-2-23 closed.
10660
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-95-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-3-2-23 by JRJ Group, Inc. requesting waiver use
�u. approval to construct an activities hall addition to St. Mary's
Antiochian Orthodox Church located on the east side of Merriman Road
between Six and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, the
City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 89-3-2-23 until June
6, 1989.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-3-2-24 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to construct and operate a Chez Yogurt Shop within the
Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located on the northwest corner of Six
Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area. This map also covers items 9, 10 and 11.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Inspection Department stating no
deficiencies or problems were found. A letter is in our file from
the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objections to
this development and lastly we have a letter from the Traffic Bureau
stating this proposal is part of the shopping center and its parking
and traffic flow is governed by the Shopping Center Master Plan. No
other areas of concern were noted.
Michael Polsinelli, 26913 Northwestern Hwy, Southfield: I represent Schostak
Brothers.
Mr. Polsinelli made a presentation to the commissioners and audience of the plans
showing the yogurt shop.
Mrs. Sobolewski: The hours of operation of this will be the same as the shopping
center?
Mr. Polsinelli: Yes.
Mr. Tent: There will be no meat products?
Mr. Polsinelli: Strictly yogurt products.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-2-24 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
aopted, it was
10661
#5-96-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-3-2-24 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a Chez Yogurt Shop within
the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located on the northwest corner of
Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the
�•► City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 89-3-2-24 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the floor plan and building elevation plan dated 3-28-89
prepared by Paul Greene Associated, Inc. which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
2) That the standup counter area provided for customers shall be
limited to a capacity of 6 persons.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06
of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to support the proposed use.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-3-2-25 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to construct and operate a Leo's Coney Island Restaurant
within the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located on the Northwest
corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 7.
Mr. Nagy: We received the same correspondence as with the previous petition.
Mr. Polsinelli presented the plans for the Coney Island Restaurant.
Mr. LaPine: Is there a separate area that is carry out?
Mr. Polsinelli: There is a carry out area that is somewhat separate primarily
because of the nature and location of the adjacent office building.
They contemplated that they needed to set that aside to accomodate
enough people.
Mr. LaPine: Who is going to operate this coney island?
Mr. Polsinelli: These are two individuals that have a complement of other Coney
Islands in the area. Right now they are Leo's Coney Island.
`..
Mr. Tent: The menu, will it be a full menu?
10662
Mr. Polsinelli: Standard typical Coney Island. Eggs, Greek specialties, salads
and sandwiches.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Do any of these restaurants have outdoor seating?
Mr. Polsinelli: All the seating is self contained within the restaurant.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-2-25 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
adopted, it was
##5-97-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-3-2-25 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a Leo's Coney Island
Restaurant within the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located on the
northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-3-2-25 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the Floor Plan marked sheet A-1, prepared by Katrivesis and
Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked sheet A-2, prepared by
Katrivesis and Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered
to.
'11411. 3) That the maximum number of seats in the restaurant shall not exceed
114.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
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
#I543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-3-2-26 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to construct and operate an Olga's Kitchen Restaurant
within the laurel Park Place Shopping Center located on the northwest
corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 7.
10663
Mr. Nagy: We have the same letters as on the previous petitions.
Mr. Polsinelli made his presentation on Olga's Kitchen Restaurant.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Same type Olga's?
Nfty Mr. Polsinelli: Same menu and identical items.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-2-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-98-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-3-2-26 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate an Olga's Kitchen
Restaurant within the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located on the
northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-3-2-26 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the Floor Plan marked sheet A-6 dated 2-13-89, prepared by
Michael A. Boggio Associates, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked sheet A-4 dated 2-13-89,
prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates, which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
``.
3) That the maximum number of seats in the restaurant shall not exceed
88.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the waiver use
standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-4-2-30 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. requesting waiver
w..
10664
use approval to construct and operate a Little Caesars Pizza Station
within the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located on the
northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Nagy: No correspondence.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-2-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-99-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-4-2-30 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a Little Caesars Pizza
Station within the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located on the
northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-4-2-30 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the Floor Plan and Building Elevation Plan dated 4-13-89
prepared by L. Caesar Enterprises which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
2) That the maximum number of seats in the restaurant shall not exceed
88.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards
and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-4-2-28 by Bill Ferminos requesting waiver use approval to
operate an automobile collision repair shop within an existing building
located on the west side of Stark Road between the C. & 0. Railroad and
Capital Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
se. zoning of the surrounding area.
10665
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this proposal. We also have a
letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objections to this operation. A letter from the Traffic Bureau
rry states they recommend the following changes be made: 1. The drive
approaches use a chord or straight line rather than a curved line.
2. A six foot walk be provided along the Stark Road frontage. 3.
The vehicle storage area be fenced for security. Lastly, we have
received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating
the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The required
security fence is not indicated on this plan. 2. The Master
Thoroughfare Plan indicates that Concord Rd. is proposed to extend
immediately south of this property. At such time as the road is
installed, the following must be addressed: a) The required security
fence would have to be located to a point 25' from the Concord Rd.
right of way and would eliminate the 15 parking spaces at the south
side of the building and necessitate the relocation of the dumpster.
These moves would create a parking deficiency of 9 spaces based upon
the current and proposed occupancy. b) All available parking will
be in full view from Concord Rd. and/or Stark Rd. They further
state that based upon this eventuality, it is doubtful that this
site has the capacity to support this use.
Greg Stempien, 38705 Seven Mile Road: I am appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Ferminos is here with me. We are petitioning to move from one
industrial building about 30 feet to the south to increase his
capacity so he has greater storage. He now has the capacity for
about eight units in the present facility. By moving immediatedly
to the south, he will be able to increase that to fifteen cars so he
will not need outside parking. As to the fence, the landlord has
assured us he will put in the fence and that will be part of our
lease. That will be taken care of.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What about the sidewalk on Stark?
Mr. Stempien: The landlord has assured us that will be taken care of. We can make
that contingent. We are going to be tenants in only a portion of
the building. He has assured me all that will be done.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Who is the landlord?
Mr. Stempien: Enrico Rosati.
Mr. Morrow: Of we are going to have all inside storage, why do we need a
security fence outside?
Mr. Nagy: The ordinance doesn't distinguish between inside storage of vehicles
or outside storage of vehicles. It is an ordinance requirement.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You could seek a waiver I suppose.
Mr. Stempien: We are not seeking that at this time. That would be sufficient for
our purposes. We have about 8 to 10 cars and we can put 15 inside.
v.. Mr. Morrow: You would certainly be more than cooperative with keeping them
inside. There is a little bit of conflict with the ordinance.
10666
Joe Vanzo, 12066 Boston Post Road: I might say that moving this repair shop from
one building to another building, now the other building where it
was located was no problem to anybody because it was within the
industrial area. Moving it to this particular facility gives the
people in that area a wide open view of a repair shop regardless of
,tap- whether it is in an industrial area. We hear them speak of no
storage facilities on the outside but that might be temporary.
There will be times when they will have more vehicles than the
inside will be able to facilitate. Because mechanically when they
work, they will need room so they will be stored outside. We all
know that.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is he storing them outside now?
Mr. Vanzo: On the other site, yes they are. I have seen them. The people who
live adjacent to this, it is a clear view to this particular piece
of property here and they are not very well in favor of this type of
operation going in there. I believe that at the present time that
first piece of property here is owned by the City. (He pointed it
out on map) That is the interest for the proposed road. I
understand that there is to be a protective wall or greenbelt to
protect that home on the corner. This property extends to beyond
two properties. We still don't have a wall and I believe the
ordinance calls for a wall. We are definitely against it because we
are not getting the cooperation we should get from that industrial
property in that particular area and we don't want to set a
precedent and a wall will have to be built because it is in the
ordinance. The people who live on Capitol object to this particular
business going into that particular area because of the possible
parking. There is no room to park cars there anyways, it is very
narrow.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Vanzo, you live in the neighborhood, don't you? Something you
said interested me. I too am concerned about these businesses that
are not allowed parking and they are supposed to keep them in the
building area, but you can complain. If there is an ordinance not
allowing outside parking, all you have to do is give them a call and
they will take care of it immediately. I would suggest if this
petition were approved and you saw those cars parked outside, all
you have to do is make one complaint to the Ordinance Enforcement
Division and that will be taken care of.
Mr. Vanzo: Rather than having to make a complaint about automobiles parked
there, why not put a wall up. That eliminates that.
Mr. Tent: Is a wall required in this area?
Mr. Nagy: Strict application of the zoning ordinance where manufacturing abuts
residential does require a wall. I can only guess that perhaps the
reason there isn't a wall is the fact that area to the south is
shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan as a future road right of way.
It was reported in their report that industrial land to the west of
these sites is literally landlocked and the purpose for the City
acquiring the site Mr. Vanzo previously pointed out is a way to
10667
provide a future roadway to extend into that area to open it up for
industrial development. My only explanation for not having a wall
would be perhaps in the future if we were to implement the road as
shown on the master plan.
Josephine Smith, 34401 Capitol: I am Lot 104. Between the two houses there is a
Soup
whole vacant field where the drainage ditch is going through and I
can see the shop. There are cars parked outside. I have seen the
men working outside before. I am concerned because this is a
collision shop and in the summertime that noise will go constantly.
There is nothing to buffer me from the noise on the other side. I
do not want that collision shop there for the noise. The other
thing I am concerned about, when he first put up his building, a
buffer was supposed to be put up and we haven't heard anything about
it. I am against the collision shop.
Debbie Bryce, 34367 Capitol: I too agree with the noise factor and I would like to
see a buffer put up.
Cheryl Groves, 11701 Boston Post: I am concerned about filtering. What do they do
for fumes? For paint fumes? What kind of filtering?
Mr. Stempien: We have that now. We have a painting booth inside. This is in
operation right now. You approved it two years ago and it has been
operating for two years. It has been approved by the City and the
Fire Department. I'm not saying that isn't a legitimate concern but
that is taken care of.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Wayne County oversees that.
W. Ms. Groves: There are a lot of neighbors that didn't even know it was there.
They had no idea. It became a concern because there are dumpsters
back there. How are they getting into the bay doors? How are they
exhausting the fumes? How are they storing the chemicals? There is
no wall. There is nothing.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, what is the distance between the homes on Capitol and
this building? Just an estimate?
Mr. Nagy: I am estimating 100 feet.
Ms. Groves: We did notice the dumpsters were there and we did see how many
parking spaces were there and it didn't seem like a lot of room for
that type of facility.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you talking about the new building?
Ms. Groves: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Well all the parking is going to be inside. That is going to be
required.
Ms. Groves: When we did find out more about it, it was very outstanding to me
That they were able to do that. Then we wonder about junk cars.
10668
Mr. Vyhnalek: They don't have any junk cars.
Ms. Groves: The fumes are a concern and there is no wall.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Has there been any complaints about fumes in the last two years?
Sow Mr. Stempien: No.
Ms. Groves: That is a concern. We have children that play in the woods abutting
this area and I would like to see a wall.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We agree but Mr. Nagy gave the reason why there wasn't a wall.
Ms. Groves: I don't feel there is any reason for a bigger facility.
Mr. Vyhnalek: There is going to be a security fence. Are you going to have your
bay doors open to the south?
Mr. Stempien: During those hours absolutely from time to time. Vehicles are
moving in and out.
Judy Tingley, 34380 Capitol: This is basically in my back yard. I am against it.
When they put up the building it concerned me. To be honest with
you, I was sort of relieved because it put something between me and
the bump shop because of the noise and young people hanging around
there on the weekends. Last summer they were working until ten
o'clock at night listening to the loud music. I am against it. All
the things they promissed us last time are not true.
Mr. Engebretson: Have they been leaving those doors open during the day other than
to get vehicles in and out? Are the doors open when the jobs are
going on indoors and does that result in the noise you are talking
about or are you referring to noise that comes about because they
are performing these duties and tasks outside the building?
Ms. Tingley: With the doors open and also outside. It is more the music
blasting.
Mr. Engebretson: A question to the petitioner. Is that your plan sir to operate
in that manner? I thought it was against the City ordinance to work
on cars outside.
Mr. Stempien: The only thing we do to cars outside is wash them.
Mr. Morrow: We are in a Catch 22. Certain members of the commission tend to
encourage these types of operations to go into manufacturing
district but we are looking at one tonight that is in a
manufacturing district but it is in close proximity to a
neighborhood and apparently on the surface it looks good but there
are other types of problems such as loud music. I know the
petitioner is saying there is no work going on outside and we have
the neighbors saying there is work going on outside. We say no
outside storage and we find there is outside storage. I don't know
which way to jump here.
10669
Mr. Stempien: The reason for outside storage for last four to six months is
because we need to expand but from time to time you are going to
have vehicles outside because tow trucks are going to bring them in
and they don't tow them directly inside.
,trow Mr. Morrow: It is a waiver use and we have to take into consideration these type
of things. I try to put myself in the position of the young lady
who just spoke. I don't want to be subject to allowing a use like
that to come in that would interfere with the quality of life on
Capitol.
Mr. Stempien: Those are the sort of things that if they approach my client they
can be handled on an individual situation by situation basis. He
doesn't want to be a bad neighbor and if his employees do something,
he can tell them to turn it down or shut it off. That sort of thing
to me isn't an issue. The chemicals and the storage and those kinds
of questions, we can answer that. These other problems that are
raised, we will deal with them like any good neighbor would on a
situation by situation basis.
Mr. Morrow: They are not in there on a waiver of use. The apprehension I have
is we hear a lot of wonderful things but sometimes we don't get what
we expect.
Mr. Stempien: You are bound to have noise and it is bound to happen when you are
operating in industrial.
Mr. LaPine: Your doors, are they on the south side of the building?
slimy Mr. Stempien: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Is it possible that they be moved to the north side of the building?
Mr. Stempien: We are the tenants. The landlord constructed the building in that
nature.
Mr. LaPine: He didn't construct this building basically for you?
Mr. Stempien: No. There is no driveway on the north side.
Mr. LaPine: Where you are now, you don't have any additional space for you to
expand?
Mr. Stempien: No.
Lady in Audience: You said this building has just been built but all those doors
do face us. There are cars in and out. Last summer when it was
hot, my patio is attached to my garage, and those young kids would
be outside sanding the cars and if you couldn't hear that radio, you
are deafer than I am.
Mr. Engebretson: From my point of view, in the petitioner's own words, this is a
very busy operation and the nature of this business, in my judgment,
is certainly suitable for an M-1 district but in this particular
10670
instance where it borders on a residential community with no
protective screening and whether they are working inside or outside
doesn't matter, I think it is inappropriate and I am going to speak
very strongly in opposition to this petition.
Nor possibility
Sobolewski: We talked about protection from a wall or barrier. Is there any
possibility whatsoever of any form of protection for these
neighbors?
Mr. Nagy: As was pointed out, it is a unique situation. Waiver uses by their
very nature are unique. That is why they require special public
hearings. There are nuisances associated with them that set them
apart from the normal kind of manufacturing activities that occur
within the district so you have the right to establish conditions to
create compatibility.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Well in this case if we can work something out and we can make it
easier and more comfortable and try to work with the petitioner,
perhaps we should table this and look at something that will meet
with the neighbors' approval.
Mr. Morrow: I don't find any fault with what Sue says. I think the petitioner
knows where we are coming from. Maybe he is not prepared to be
saddled with all those conditions.
Mr. LaPine: I am not opposed to having the owner of the property put up a wall
but all a wall will do for these neighbors is block their view of
the operation. Loud music can still be heard over a wall. The
banging of metal can be heard over a wall so it is not going to
eliminate that. it will only eliminate them looking at facility.
I think their big complant is the noise.
Mr. Kluver: There are several ways for us to handle this situation. If you are
looking for conditions, we can do that but there is a valid point
here and that is that this type of operation requires waiver use and
again the purpose of that waiver is to control this type of use and
I believe it belongs in the industrial area but here is a case of
logistics. You have a situation where the waiver use is not
applicable because the type of operation is too close to residential
area. Possibly we should table this situation and try to come up
with an adequate solution. We have an obligation to our citizens to
see if we can work out a compromise.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-2-28 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
MI5-100-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-4-2-28 by Bill Ferminos requesting waiver use
approval to operate an automobile collision repair shop within an
existing building located on the west side of Stark Road between the C.
& 0. Railroad and Capitol Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, the
City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 89-4-2-28 until May
4.. 16, 1989.
10671
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Petition 89-4-2-29 by Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval to
hold the 24th Annual Livonia Jaycee's Spring Carnival at the Omni
Theater property located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and
Farmington Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
Steve Sartarias: I am the new Livonia Jaycees President.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We are going to deviate from the regular schedule. He wants to make
a statement about what took place today.
Mr. Sartarias: Basically I will tell you what we would like from the commission.
It is anticipated that a written withdrawal of this petition would
be available tomorrow pending a signed contract with DRC. We would
like to see approval of this petition until we can present the
agreement with DRC to Council tomorrow.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We approved Rotary at DRC. Now Rotary has withdrawn their petition
and you are now going to take their time spot on tomorrow's agenda
at DRC with Wade Shows. This petition they have tonight is for
Farmington and Plymouth Road area with a different carnival so if we
approve this tonight, you will have to withdraw at the council
level.
Mr. Nagy: If you waive the seven days, the Council can theoretically put this
item for the Farmington and Plymouth Road one also on the agenda
tomorrow night. The Council President can order that it be placed
on as an X item. If the other arrangement that is worked out with
the Rotary falls through, this is like an insurance and they will
continue to pursue the Plymouth and Farmington Road location. If it
comes to pass, they will move forward on the Middlebelt and
Schoolcraft location.
*11:20 - Mr. McCann entered meeting at this time.
Mr. Sartaris: I want you to know this has been confusing for me too.
Mr. LaPine: The carnival you were going to operate on the Omni Theater property.
Do you have a contract with Crown? What do you do, dump that and
then pick up Wade?
Mr. Sartaris: I believe what I was told today was that representatives from both
Wade and Crown met today and discussed the situation and worked out
something but I don't know exactly what that was.
Mr. LaPine: It is none of my business but it just seems Crown must have a
contract.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think Wade will probably give Crown another spot.
Mr. Sartaris: Crown did say that they thought the Omni site was not mutually
acceptable.
10672
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-2-29 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-101-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-4-2-29 by Livonia Jaycees requesting
waiver use approval to hold the 24th Annual Livonia Jaycee's Spring
Carnival at the Omni Theater property located on the northeast corner of
Plymouth and Farmington Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area
as described.
2) That all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other
related transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the
operation of the carnival shall be parked or stored on the subject
property.
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject site has the capacity to accomodate the proposed
use.
2) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general
waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-102-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with
Petition 89-4-2-29 by Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval to
hold the 24th Annual Livonia Jaycee's Spring Carnival at the Omni
Theater property located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and
Farmington Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-7-1
by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of
the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the
designation of property located west of Newburgh Road, north of Plymouth
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from industrial to medium
density residential.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
10673
Mr. Vhylanek: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission.
Scott Heinzman, 37601 Grantland: I would like to say changing master plan to
residential is a favorable situation. However, medium density
doesn't really comply with the preferences that myself and a lot of
`. people on Grantland have. You remember Petition 88-10-1-31 by Dr.
Mendelssohn. Most of the opposition to that was due to preference
for single family residential. As we understand it, medium density
entails two-story maximum apartments and with R-1 there would be a
much stronger preference to low density. One of the things to point
out is when the City land came up for sale, your recommendation at
that time was R-2. R-2 doesn't fall under the medium density. It
falls under low density. Although residential would be good, it
would open the door to apartments, which we are very much against
and we would very much prefer single family homes in that area. I
think it falls under low density.
Mr. Nagy: The staff recommended medium density. While we did take into
account the existing housing pattern in the area, the thing we are
looking at in the future, of course, is the City property. While we
did hold a hearing for the R-2, the City is pursuing that property
for housing for the elderly, which would be medium density rather
than low density.
Mary Hirschlieb: When I hear of all the problems you work with, it scares me as to
the future and what we are going to have to contend with before this
is settled and of course we are hoping for the best. Scott has
pretty much spoken for us. We appreciate your concern and hope we
can trust your decisions for this area.
Mr. Morrow: As far as what Mr. Nagy has said about the City-owned RUF property,
I support the senior citizens in that area but also in the many
hearings that we have had on this parcel, Plymouth Road has a lot of
things pertaining towards commercial, C-1 and C-2 type of
applications, more intense uses than the medium density
classification and because we are only talking about the future land
use plan, we are not really talking about rezoning the property, I
support the staff's feelings that medium density would be the best
classification.
Mr. Heinzman: Number one, our street would not have any problem with a Silver
Village being put in if the master plan was low density. We would
not have a problem with a waiver for that. I would also like to
point out that single family homes are much more appreciated than
apartments or condominiums.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-7-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-103-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts
of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City
of Livonia, having duly held a Public Hearing on May 9, 1989 for the
purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia,
the Future Land Use Plan, the same is hereby amended by changing the
designation of property located west of Newburgh Road, north of Plymouth
10674
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from industrial to medium
density residential, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan will reflect
the City's future development policy for the subject area.
`r.
2) That the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan will reflect
the residential character of the subject area.
3) That the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan will provide
a reasonable development guide for the City when deliberating
future requests for changes of zoning in the area.
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 Future Land
Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by
reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City
Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Fox Run Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the
east side of Levan, south of Lyndon in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20.
1411. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
John Lezotte, 36361 Lyndon: We looked at a couple of different combinations and
this is what we feel is the best for this neighborhood. I plan on
building a house there myself. I talked to neighbors on Lyndon and
they were concerned about walking through their back yards and I
proposed putting a sidewalk out on Levan Road.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Right now Allen Road ends right there?
Mr. Lezotte: Yes.
Mrs. Sobolewski: When you are doing your construction in there, are you going to
bring in all your trucks off Levan?
Mr. Lezotte: I am proposing to have a temporary road.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the price range?
Mr. Lezotte: $145,000 to $175,000.
Pat Bracken, 14475 Woodside: My home backs up to the property. I got the
notification on this a couple of weeks ago, I have no problem with
the homes going in there. I have a question about the number of
homes he is trying to get in there. I live on a cul-de-sac. The
area of that cul-de-sac is slightly smaller than area he is working
with. In both of those cases they are working with 8 homes. In
this case he is trying to get 10 homes in there. I had heard before
10675
the value of the homes was somewhere in the $40,000 to $50,000
range. Homes in the $170,000 range - that is fine. That is what
the homes in that area are today. It seems to be a tight amount of
land for 10 homes. If he meets the City codes, I guess we have no
issue.
New
Mr. Nagy: It meets all of the requirements. In fact, it exceeds them.
Michael Neary: I live on the corner of Lyndon and Levan. I have known John Lezotte
for 12 years. He built my home and he is a very quality builder.
My house is a very substantial home and I think what he proposes,
I keep calling it a cul-de-sac but there are no homes around it. He
is going to build on two lots himself so there are probably 7 or 8
so I am for it very much because I believe it will add to the
property value. If he says the houses will be worth $150,000, it
will be $170,000 by the time they are sold.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this matter and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for
Fox Run Estates Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-104-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Preliminary Plat approval for Fox Run Estates Subdivision
proposed to be located on the east side of Levan, south of Lyndon in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Fox Run
Estates Subdivision be approved for the following reasons:
Slaw
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is drawn in conformance with all
applicable City Ordinances and Regulations pertaining thereto.
2) That no City Department has objected to the approval of the
Preliminary Plat.
3) That the proposed Preliminary Plat provides a good land use solution
to development of the subject land area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting
property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of
Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to
the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department,
Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-3-2-21
by Transmission Retailers, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
operate a transmission repair facility within the Jeffries Commerce
Center located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road west of Inkster
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 25.
10676
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
they have no objections to this proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The petitioner called me today and stated he would be off work by
nine o'clock and he was going to try to get here. He stated he does
not do retail business as such. What he does is he gets companies
that have problems with their fleets and they bring them in and he
services them right there. They do not go out and advertise for
customers. That is why he needs one hoist. He also stated that he
has filling stations that when they take the transmissions out and
it is shot and needs a new one, they will bring it down there and he
will put in a new one for them and take it back to the service
station. Since he is not here tonight, we can table it or approve
it or deny it.
Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding the only problem here is the question of the
hoist and I don't see any problem.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-2-21 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-105-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
1989 on Petition 89-3-2-21 by Transmission Retailers, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to operate a transmission repair facility within the
'_r Jeffries Commerce Center located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road
west of Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 25, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 89-3-2-21 be approved subject to the conditions that only one
hoist shall be permitted and that no overnight parking of customer
vehicles shall be allowed unless parked inside the building, for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements set forth in Section 17.02(a) and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10677
Mr. Vyhnalek, 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 and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#5-106-89 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 576th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on April 4, 1989 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, mcCann, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sobolewski
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-107-89 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 577th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on April 18, 1989 are approved.
Mr. Vyhnalek, 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
adsopted, it was
44411' #5-108-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
89-4-8-16 by William L. Roskelly for approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to Bingham Service Center located on the south
side of Five Mile between Levan and Golfview in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 20, subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 89-3-10 as revised on 4/30/89 prepared by Basney and
Smith, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plans shown on Sheets 1 & 2 prepared by Camborne
Construction Engineering, Inc. , are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3) That Landscape Plan 89-3-10 as revised on 4/30/89 prepared by Basney
and Smith, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be installed on site
prior to occupancy of the addition.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
adopted, it was
fir.
10678
#5-109-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
89-4-8-17 by Anthony C. Rea for approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
renovate and add to an existing commercial building located on the
northwest corner of Five Mile and Middlebelt in the Southeast 1/4 of
'41111. Section 14, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan as revised on 5/8/89 prepared by
Anthony C. Rea, Architect is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2) That the Building Plan as revised on 5/8/89 prepared by Anthony C.
Rea, Architect is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That this approval is subject to the petitioner obtaining a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals at its meeting of May 23, 1989.
4) That window signage be limited to 25% of window area.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-110-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
89-4-8-18 by Barry and Murray Foreman for approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
renovate and add to an existing commercial building located on the
southwest corner of Eight Mile and Inkster in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 1, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan prepared by Barry and Murray
Foreman is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Plan prepared by Barry and Murray Foreman is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That landscaping shown on the approved plan be installed on site
upon completion of the building addition.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 578th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on May 9, 1989 was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
gita
f1( C. McCann, Secretary
0.X.0Loac....,)
ATTEST. J
Donald Vyhna�ek, Chairman
jg