HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-09-19 10818
MINUTES OF THE 586th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 19, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 586th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. William LaPine, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent
Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei Sue Sobolewski
James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek
Members absent: R. Lee Morrow
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were
also present.
Mr. LaPine informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner
has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the
petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a
preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do
not become effective until seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The
Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been
furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may
use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
89-1-1-2, as amended, by Frank Jonna for Pentagon Properties
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 6 from M-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 received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating their office has no objections to this proposal;
however, they will require that the petitioner supply their
office with anticipated sanitary sewer flows that will be
generated from the project. This information will be compared
with the original design criteria for the Seven Mile Road
sanitary sewer system. We have also received a letter from
William H. Huppenbauer, President of American Community Mutual
Insurance Company stating in 1981 they located their corporate
office headquarters on the S.E. corner of Seven Mile and
Haggerty. Since that time the CBS/Fox, Seven Mile Crossing, Six
Mile/Newburgh/I-275 developments, and pending Victor projects
10819
have become their neighbors. Also nearby, Newburgh Plaza,
Jacobson's, the Seven Mile/Newburgh stores, and Meijers provide
more than adequate commercial support. All of these
developments have supported their desire to be in the center of
a quality office district. He further states they recognize
that Mr. Jonna and Pentagon Properties intend to provide a
fir• quality commercial development, but they believe that office
projects of the caliber of CBS/Fox, which addresses preserving
and using the existing natural features of the property, are
better suited for this site. Therefore, they do not support
this petition.
Mr. Engebretson: John, given the surrounding area there having very few
neighbors in terms of numbers, does that American Community
ojection constitute a protest in terms of a super majority vote
by Council?
Mr. Nagy: No. There is not enough area because of the existing C-2
zoning already established on the corner.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence from the D.N.R. relative
to the wetlands or has that been covered at a previous session?
Mr. Nagy: Your petitioner in preparing his site plan has illustrated to
his best ability, after consulting with the D.N.R. , the extent
of the wetlands and they are illustrated on the map of the area.
As far as our office, we have not received anything directly
from D.N.R. We have relied on the information the petitioner
has furnished us.
Mr. Engebretson: When we had the original public hearing on this, Mr. Nagy, we
were advised by Mr. Jonna that the procedure relative to
mitigating this wetland issue was to deal with the zoning and
having done that then go to the D.N.R. to seek mitigation. Is
that, in fact, the procedure as you would understand it?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is exactly right. It is the practice of the D.N.R. to
put the burden of defining the wetland area on the petitioner or
the property owner and it is up to them to consult with a
wetland expert. They go out and try to flag the wetland area.
That is taken into account. The D.N.R. only comes out and makes
its check after the project is ready to go. They do not come
out in advance. They wait until the City approves the zoning
and development plans and then they react to it.
Frank Jonna, 28990 Rotary, Farmington Hills: When we originally looked at the
site our original proposal included approximately 22 acres that
was to be rezoned commercial. We have scaled that down to
approximately 17 acres. We looked at the existing C-2 zoning
and tried to determine what type of center or commercial use
would be best suited for that small piece of C-2 and found that
we would be dealing with either a small retail strip center or a
combination of gas stations and fast food type uses and it was
not the kind of use we felt would be compatible with the rest of
the development we owned along Haggerty Road. We feel the C-2
was originally placed there because there was some sort of a
need or demand for C-2 for that area. What we are trying to do
10820
is to extend that C-2 into a large area that will allow us to
attract major national tenants, which tend to have less of a
turn-over rate than smaller tenants. It would allow us to
devote the majority of the space to a single user and try to
*, attract large retailers for the balance of the space. We have
received a letter of intent from the Target Company for the use
'44m. of this property. Originally when we came you were concerned
about the market conditions and the traffic conditions. We feel
we have done quite a bit of research with respect to the market
conditions and that the interest generated by Target and other
retailers, we feel very comfortably that we can develop a first
class center that will be leased out very rapidly. We feel,
also, that retail is an essential component of the mixed use
that we have established with the Chestnut Hills development to
the north and that this commercial zoning will compliment the
Chestnut Hills development. With respect to the wetlands issue,
we have successfully received a wetland permit on our other site
and the process is exactly as John has identified it. We cannot
approach the D.N.R. with any proposals until we know exactly
what we can put on that so we would have to go through the
entire site plan approval process before we can get any kind of
permission to develop the site from the D.N.R. The fact that
there is substantial wetland on this site means it will be a
substantially low yielding center or commercial development by
comparison to a piece of ground that had no wetland on it. We
have also looked into the traffic situation and I have asked our
traffic consultant to be here tonight and if you wish I could
ask him to address the traffic issue.
Carl Kleitsch, Traffic Engineer with Reid, Cool & Michalski, Inc. of Southfield,
*ft. Michigan: I have been asked to briefly look at the possible trip
generation rate that might come from four different development
scenarios. I have generated this information based on data that
is availble to me through the Institute of Transportation and
Trip Generation Handbook. A few weeks back I did provide some
of that information to you. I would like to pass out the same
information again. In that handout I have identified morning
and evening peak hour trips that would be generated by four
different scenarios. One would be a light industrial
development with 255,000 sq. ft. I have totaled the numbers
here for simplicity. In the morning there would be the total of
226 trips entering and leaving and in the afternoon 223 for a
total of 449. If the site was developed for office research at
a size of 255,000 sq. ft. , we would have morning trips of 281
vehicles and evening trips of 260 for a total of 541,
essentially the same total as the light industrial. For office
development at a size of 500,000 sq. ft. , we have morning trips
of 800 and evening trips of 749 for a total of 1549 and if it is
developed as retail, as is being requested, at 150,000 sq. ft. ,
we would have morning trips of 134 and afternoon trips of 461
for a total of 595. So for the first, second and third the
totals are really quite similar within about 100 trips of each
other whereas the office development is two to three times what
the others would be. Those are what we would see as the
potential trips that would be developed by the four different
scenarios.
10821
Mr. LaPine: When you are talking about trips, are you talking about one car?
Mr. Kleitsch: Yes, one car and a one way trip.
,,` Mr. LaPine: You are talking about the volume going onto that site?
Mr. Kleitsch: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: When you talk about the peak hours, what hours are we talking?
Mr. Kleitsch: Typically the morning peak hours occur between 7:00 a.m. and
9:00 a.m. The afternoon peak hours between 5:00 p.m. and 6:30
p.m. To that peak hour, we will add these peak hour trips and
any other pending developments we are aware of. We do add them
together and that gives us a work case situation.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is strictly for the proposed Target and the secondary
stores in this development on this piece of property, is that
correct?
Mr. Kleitsch: The fourth scenario, the retail.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That doesn't take into consideration Mr. Jonna's property up
above there about one half a mile, the Meijers, and any other
traffic going on Haggerty Road?
Mr. Kleitsch: No it does not sir.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Haggerty Road between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and
6:30 p.m. is pretty well traveled and that means we are going to
put another 600 cars on that road during the daytime in two to
four hours.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on that. Mr. Kleitsch, as we all
know, was so very much involved in some recent traffic studies
in that area particularly as it pertained to the proposed
development at the south end of the Schoolcraft College campus.
Do you recall that?
Mr. Kleitsch: Yes I do.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you take into consideration in your traffic study that you
did for this development all of the existing and proposed
developments and the traffic that they generate to see if we are
reaching the point where we have the straw that breaks the
camel's back? Because, as Don pointed out, anyone that travels
this particular area of Livonia knows that during those peak
periods now it is almost a grid lock type of condition,
particularly as it pertains to making left turns and we haven't
begun to see the impact of all the development in this area.
While 500 cars doesn't seem like a lot, 500 on top of 5,000 just
may be the amount of volume that makes it an unworkable
situation. So the question is did you look at these other
impact studies that you and others have made in order to come to
some kind of a determination as to whether or not this creates a
problem?
10822
Mr. Kleitsch: We have not reached the point of doing a full fledged traffic
study because we are not aware of what the development will be
on the site. Once that is determined, we will know in detail
what the development will be and then we will go forward with
adding the traffic from the proposed development to the existing
traffic. This is mostly what would be generated by these
possible developments on site.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand that and I don't mean to belabor the point but I
am not concerned so much about the specific details of what goes
into this specific site, because I will accept your numbers as
being reasonable in terms of the traffic that will be generated
by this particular site, but the anticipated traffic generated
by these other projects that are on stream or proposed. Those
volumes are substantial. You are very familiar with some of
them because you developed those numbers. So the question is not
whether or not these numbers are specifically correct relative
to the character of what may be developed at this particular
site but how do they mesh in with all the other things going on
in the neighborhood?
Mr. Kleitsch: When we do the traffic impact study, we will include existing
volume. We will add to that volume traffic that will be
generated by other known and planned projects in the area and to
that total we would add trips that would be generated from this
particular development.
Mr. Engebretson: When do you plan to do that?
ti Mr. Kleitsch: When I know what the development will be. In other words I have
numbers here. I would have to do four traffic impact studies.
Mr. Engebretson: I think that the existing traffic and the anticipated traffic
from the other projects stays the same no matter what happens
here. I guess I am curious as to why you can't mesh them all
together.
Mr. Kleitsch: As I indicated we would end up with basically four different
reports. You are right. Certainly we could build on
information from one report but they would be four distinct
reports.
Mr. Engebretson: One model with four variations. The impact of this relatively
trivial development compared to all the other development in the
area.
Mr. LaPine: I think what he is saying Jack that until he knows exactly what
the zoning is going to be, they don't want to do an impact study
on all four possible zonings. What he has here is what he
figures would be if each one of these different classifications
were developed. I understand what you are saying he could pick
up his other studies he did and key these in and come up with
some figures, but I understand what he is saying too.
Mr. McCann: A question to Mr. Nagy. For me to understand whether this
exhibit is accurate, I would like to know, he is talking about
10823
approximately a 20 acre development, and he is stating that
basically retail will have the least effect on the traffic in
the area compared to office, office/research and light
industrial. My question to Mr. Nagy is he puts down for light
industrial 255,000 square feet, office/research 255,000 square
4411. feet, office 500,000 square feet. Are those realistic numbers
to deal with on that amount of acreage or has he overestimated
the size that would go in there or has he underestimated them.
This graph tells us that retail may have the least effect on
traffic but I don't know if the office size is correct.
Mr. Nagy: I think he has made an assumption that the site could support
office/research up to 250,000 square feet and general office of
500,000 square feet. He has made the assumption that the
property would be rezoned into some kind of a high-rise zoning
classification to support that much space. I think it is an
approximation but how realistic I cannot say as it is too
speculative.
Mr. McCann: So you are telling me 250,000 square feet would be real dense.
Mr. Nagy: I think they are using the site to its maximum capacity.
Mr. Vyhnalek: To Mr. McCann. The Duke project had 38 acres of land and they
had 1,000,000 square feet south of Schoolcraft. So this is
about half that big, 17 to 20 acres, so that means there is
going to be at least one twelve-story and maybe an eight-story
building.
''1r.
Mr. Engebretson: One last comment. Mr. McCann brings to mind, by referring to
the impact of the various other classifications of development
that might be possible on that site, the point I wanted to make
in the retail classification. As you well know, what they are
presenting here are the trips generated during the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours and I guess the point is overall I think we would
probably anticipate that the proposed retail development would
generate far more total trips during the day than the others,
the point being that during the peak hours they do, in fact,
appear to generate the least amount of traffic but I think from
the standpoint of the overall traffic concerns we have in the
area that the retail, while it may produce the least impact
during the peak periods, I suspect it would impact the highest
amount total during the daylight hours. I would like to ask Mr.
Kleitsch if he agrees with that.
Mr. Kleitsch: Yes I would.
Mr. Tent: I would like to ask a question of Mr. Jonna. How long have you
owned this property?
Mr. Jonna: Approximately a year and a half.
10824
Mr. Tent: Your original intention was for it to be used in the P.O.
classification with offices?
Mr. Jonna: The rezoning request we submitted included some retail, some
P.O. and some of the existing P.O. and M-1 at the top of the
,` area to remain as is.
Mr. Tent: Are you having some problems getting some P.O. type of tenant?
Mr. Jonna: We have had a couple of proposals that we have made to existing
tenants in Livonia, tenants that were expanding and relocating.
One was Graco Robotics, which ultimately went to Plymouth.
Another was Mitsubishi Electric Sales of America. Both of those
tenants we made proposals to but were unable to secure their
leases at this site. We have a premium site here, which is
considerably higher land cost than what we are looking at in
Livonia. So it was very difficult for us to compete with the
Plymouth location.
Mr. Tent: I recognize that but you have a good location there and for you
to convert this entire area to a shopping center that does
concern me because this is a golden corridor and what you are
saying is we have office pollution here. Is that correct? We
have too many office buildings in this part of town and you are
probably going to pursue the commercial venture instead?
Mr. Jonna: The market is telling us that what is in demand today is
commercial. We still have approximately 20 acres of this parcel
and 11 acres that we have done nothing with adjacent to CBS Fox
and the Chestnut Hills development, which is approximately half
a million square feet of office. The office market in this area
is picking up but it is slightly soft at this time. This
project, from what the market is telling us, can be built and it
is our intent to build it in a high level of quality to maintain
the property that we own adjacent.
Mr. Tent: I would like you to pursue the other type of development because
you do have a valuable piece of property and a good location.
Mr. Jonna: In looking at the mixed use concept, it is our feeling that
approximately 90 acres that we control in the area, that
rezoning a portion to commercial will not be detrimental to the
area and that it will complement the area and will provide a use
that is in demand.
Mr. Tent: We have several petitions coming up. We have had several
petitions in the past and they just keep telling us that this is
probably the most idealistic location for high-rise office
buildings and that they will be rentable. That was my concern.
I wanted to ask you, as a developer, what your thinking was on
that particular location.
Mr. Jonna: We feel it is a viable office market but I realize also that
Planning and the City is very much concerned about density.
What we were trying to do in that traffic study was not to tell
10825
you what the traffic impact of the area is. We realize we would
have to work with the county and the city in insuring quality
traffic flow and do whatever road improvements were necessary to
do that. What we are trying to illustrate is the retail use is
a complimentary traffic use. It is not a dense use as compared
%sr to having half a million square feet of office, which
conceivably could be built there if the proper high-rise zoning
were allowed. It allows us to actually reduce the potential
density for the City.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Jonna, when your firm acquired this property surely you
were aware that it was zoned for the most part M-1, light
manufacturing, and there is existing use like that right next
door. You also undoubtedly were aware that the Future Land Use
Plan has in mind office development in this particular area
because you are right the City is concerned about density for a
lot of good reasons and I guess my interest in pursuing this
point is to try and understand why, given those facts, you are
so bent on converting this corner to commercial use citing the
small C-2 corner as being the motivation to expand the C-2 into
the larger area? I guess I am wondering why you didn't expand
the larger M-1 area into total M-1 or in looking at the City's
Future Land Use Plan going into office in that area with a
lesser impact?
Mr. Jonna: We feel that it is not only the use but the quality of the
development that goes with the use and a sub-standard office
development is no more beneficial than a sub-standard retail
development. In the small amount of C-2 that exists there, we
have numerous offers for gas stations and fast food type of
facilities, all of which were turned down because we would like
to see a site that is totally integrated and has some
cohesiveness to it and will complement the area rather than
detract from the area but there is a tremendous demand for
commercial in that area. There is going to be a need for
commercial in the area. Haggerty Road has high traffic volume
and it is going to have a lot of development and any type of
development is going to generate a demand for commercial use.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess the demand for the commercial use is something you
would get a lot of different opinions on depending on who you
talk to but I would just like to leave it with I guess there
would be a lot less resistance, if there is resistance, to move
towards light manufacturing or office development rather than
commercial primarily because of the traffic impact issue.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Jonna, I am one of the few Commissioners who work in the
community and as I am out and about in the community and the
feedback that I get back from our citizens is they are very
concerned and unhappy with all the commercial development that
they are finding, especially some of the newer. This part of
the community is not highly populated. I do not see the need
for this type of commercial development. It is already well
served with the stores that are in the area. There are at least
r..
10826
three along Haggerty Road. One in the south direction and two
in the north. I don't feel, as one Commissioner, that Target is
the quality type of development that you refer to, the type that
we want in this corridor. We have a need for the M-1, the light
industrial. Because we have a need for that, that is what I
personally am looking for and not a development such as the
Target.
Mr. Jonna: We certainly respect the opinions and needs you feel but we are
not the experts. The experts are the people who have come to us
and said what they think we should use the property for. That
is why we are here making this request. They have indicated to
us that they do feel it is a quality retail site and they are
the ones who would have to insure that it is a quality
development. The Target people have indicated to us that they
are very cooperative in developing a site plan that is
acceptable to ourselves and the City and they would work in the
community and are involved in the community. They are the type
of retailer that I would consider them to be on the high end.
Mrs. Fandrei: We here on the board, many of us live in this general area, and
I think because our land in Livonia is so scarce we feel a
little more protective and we are hearing that our community
needs the M-1 so again we are being protective of the zoning
that we presently have and careful about overdeveloping some of
the commercial. We also have to consider the inter structure of
our City. The areas that are presently developed and being
used, we don't want those to be vacated just to move west to the
newer areas so this is partly what we are considering as we look
at this property. The present businesses in the inter structure
of the City.
Mr. Jonna: We would only hope that this competition would encourage the
developers of existing properties to improve their properties
and to bring them up to the standards that would be acceptable
to a tenant. We have never been able to move a tenant that was
happy. We find that tenants are interested in moving when the
landlord is not keeping up the property and is not maintaining
it and those kind of things will generate vacancies. You have a
tremendous amount of growth in new residential developments
proposed for the northwest area of Livonia and we feel that this
center will help to serve that area.
Mr. Kluver: Basically the Future Land Use Plan laid out some excellent
strategy for the City and the City has basically followed those
guidelines but this particular corner is an area where we have
great concern. This particular area we are talking about, the
20 acres, is a silent issue and yet to rezone to a commercial
endeavor I believe would have great impact on the City. We can
see what happens in commercial developments if you would go one
mile north on Haggerty Road at Eight Mile Road. This is an
example of an overdeveloped commercial corner on both the south,
the north, the east and the west. We have the privilege in this
City to guide ourselves with the Future Land Use Plan and see
the merits
10827
of prudent use of the land and have this classification that
will allow us to have an orderly development. For that reason I
strongly support the continued zoning that is in that area
because I think you can visually look at something one mile
north that is totally out of control from a zoning viewpoint.
Mr. Engebretson: A comment and a question to Mr. Nagy. I think Mr. Kluver
focuses in very directly on a nightmare intersection and we can
see the same kind of situation developing at this intersection
if we are not cautious in the development of this piece of land.
I would to like to ask Mr. Nagy could you comment on what is
planned by our neighboring communities in this general vicinity
because what we have been focusing on are those things that we
know about that we have been dealing with. I am hoping that you
are informed as to what is coming on stream across the street
because all of these things have to be taken into consideration
even though they are not in Livonia.
Mr. Nagy: Along that corridor beginning with Eight Mile Road and going
south the Northville Township Master Plan has designated the
area that is currently developed by the Meijers as commercial.
Where that would leave off moving south along the Haggerty
corridor there is a plan for general offices. When you get
south of Seven Mile Road they reflect the institutional uses
generally established in the area such as Hawthorne Center and
where that property leaves off you would pick up with general
office south to the Six Mile Road area. It is generally a
corridor of office developments with only commercial at the
Eight Mile and Haggerty area where the Meijers is.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-1-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and
unanimously approved, it was
#9-192-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 19, 1989 on Petition 89-1-1-2, as amended, by Frank Jonna
for Pentagon Properties requesting to rezone property located on the
east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from M-1 to C-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
89-1-1-2 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is not supported by the
Future Land Use Plan which designates the area for office use.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is not in accordance with the
developing character of the I-275 Freeway corridor which
features major office and hotel type uses.
3) That this area of the City, as well as adjacent communities, are
presently well served with commercial uses permitted in the
proposed zoning district.
'rr.
10828
4) That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate a need
in this area for the types of commercial uses that are permitted
by the C-2 zoning district.
5) That the location of the subject land, and its physical
`• character is more conducive to office type development because
it allows more sensitivety toward the preservation of the
existing topography and major wetland areas.
6) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that
will generate an unacceptable level of additional vehicular
traffic in the area.
7) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the purpose of
the Zoning Ordinance which is to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare of the community by facilitating
adequate provisions for increased safety in traffic and for
transportation, vehicular parking, parks, parkways, recreation,
schools, public buildings, housing, light, air, water supply,
sewerage, sanitation, and other public requirements that lessen
congestion, disorder and danger which often occurs in
unregulated municipal development.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
\. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-8-1-25
by Trinity Baptist Church, Inc. and James Blain Associates requesting
to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between
Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 7 from P.S. , R-5C, R-9III and AG to P.O. II.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Bakewell could you point out where the Schoolcraft Home for
the Aged is located? Is that landlocked?
Mr. Bakewell: No it is not landlocked. There is access at the intersection of
the highway right-of-way and the property itself to get into
this property.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating there are no storm sewers available to service the site
in question. On-site detention of storm water runoff would be
required. If the rezoning proposals are approved, it will be
necessary for the petitioner to provide this office with
anticipated sanitary sewer flows for the development. This
information would be required in order to analyze the impact on
the downstream sanitary sewer systems. We have also received a
letter from James K. Graham, Attorney at Law, stating he is a
10829
vitally interested party in the captioned matter. He is a
Limited Partner in the Schoolcraft Home for the Aged. They have
certain legal commitments that would impact on the petition
under consideration. He states they would not object to a
zoning change as long as it includes their land-locked parcel
;` and requests that we protect the zoning interests of the
Schoolcraft Home of the Aged.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to correct Mr. Graham that it is not landlocked?
Mr. Nagy: We have sent Mr. Graham a letter advising him that Schoolcraft
Home for the Aged is on a separate tax record. It has its own
sidwell number. The area map that Mr. Bakewell showed earlier
will verify that it is a separate tax parcel and the petitioner
does not have a legal interest in that property and could not
petition without someone else signing for him.
Jim Blain, 39209 Six Mile: I would first like to make a modification to our
zoning plan as submitted based on the preliminary planning
meeting in which Commissioner Fandrei pointed out that the whole
piece was submitted for a P.O. II, which is an eight-story
office rezoning. It was a mistake on our part, obviously the
frontage piece on Six Mile, which is the church and a graveyard
and the R-5C should not be rezoned to that high of a
classification so I have 12 copies in which we would like to
amend this petition to a P.S. , which goes along with the R-5C
and leaving the church and graveyard as it is.
Mr. Blain presented the new plans to the Commission.
`�.
Mr. Blain: I am the architect and owner of the property directly to the
south across Six Mile Road. We have three office buildings.
What we have here is a major intersection in the area for
southeastern Michigan, which is probably one of the major
intersections for Michigan and I think for the whole nation.
We have a double eight lane loop road. You will find that this
parcel is prime office use and that is our proposal. Based on
what we have done in the past, we have never loaded up a site.
We have always tried to consider the neighborhood. If you have
ever seen the Cambridge Center, the four-story building, even
though it looks four-stories from the intersection, we have
tried to design it so as to relate it to the one-story houses to
the south and the one-story buildings to the west. We would
probably come in here with a proposal instead of a 12 or a 20
story building with a building of eight stories, which is higher
than the surrounding buildings but, in my opinion as an
architect, the site can handle that. It is not overburdened. I
think it would still give the City and that intersection a focal
point. I think the City and the whole golden corridor of I-275,
Six, Seven and Eight Mile needs this focal point. We would like
to tie it in and we have the ability to tie it in with the
Quakertown Lane and I think the building would be located closer
to the north end of the site and we would do an extension of the
Quakertown Lane and wind that boulevard back into the site
leaving the front part of the site strictly as access and
`.
10830
entrance to the back. We have done that successfully with the
Cambridge Building and our buildings are full and that is why I
am in front of you now because we do have interest from
international people to do this project.
Mr. LaPine: The residence on parcel B that would be demolished?
'New
Mr. Blain: No, that would have to be moved. That is under the historic
preservation and we have talked to Greenmead and some other
people and that would be moved. The cemetery and church would
be taken care of and stay as it is.
Mr. LaPine: What you are saying is the house would be moved off that site?
Mr. Blain: Yes.
Mr. McCann: I am interested in the comments you had about international
tenants. What percentage of the building? You say you have
commitments?
Mr. Blain: I don't have commitments. I have people who are interested.
Mr. McCann: Are you talking a single tenant?
Mr. Blain: I think it would be a multiple grouping of tenants. We are
talking about a 200,000 square foot building. We just had some
interest from some Japenese people and European people. That
corridor is getting international, being the center of the auto
world is here and they see this as the place to locate versus
Auburn Hills or downtown Detroit because of the ease of access,
Now community airport, etc. and when they come in they study a
community.
Mr. McCann When is this proposed building to take place?
Mr. Blain: I don't think a tenant would occupy the building for three
years. The design isn't finalized.
Mr. McCann: How do you feel the proposed project going in at Schoolcraft
would affect your proposal should that get approved?
Mr. Blain: I compete with Schoolcraft right now. I don't understand the
total Schoolcraft deal and I don't know if they have an
advantage.
Mr. McCann: I am not looking for advantage. They have a proposal for
1,000,000 square feet north of you and should that go in, in
addition to yours, I think you would find a lot of empty
buildings.
Mr. Blain: It is going to be more competition. I compete with them right
now. As long as they don't have a distinct advantage against me
from some sort of an economic viewpoint, I will go ahead. If
they do, I have a little problem with that part of it. I think
it would have a real negative effect on me.
10831
Mrs. Fandrei: You mentioned that the cemetery is going to be fenced. At the
prehearing review you indicated that some of the gravesites
might have to be moved from your access road.
Mr. Blain: Within the cemetery.
. Mrs. Fandrei: To Mr. Nagy. Isn't that illegal to move gravesites?
Mr. Nagy: I am sure there is some interests that the owners of the
gravesites would have that they would have to work out. I think
he is aware of that.
Mr. Blain: I don't want to sit here in front of you and say we are never
going to touch one of those and then have to move one two feet
over. That could be a possibility. It may never happen.
Mrs. Fandrei: It could be a problem. The owners might not like it.
Mr. Blain: It could be a real problem.
Mrs. Fandrei: You mentioned that your intention is to make this intersection a
focal point. I have to be real honest. I am not excited about
your green focal point across the street and I would like to
know what you have in mind as far as the building. What
percentage of the building is glass? What are we looking at as
far as building materials, etc.?
Mr. Blain: Commenting on the green building. The green building has won
every architectural award in Michigan. Whether you like it or
tiny not a lot of people refer to that intersection. Some people
like it, some people don't. I'm just letting you know the
statistics. It has won a lot of architectural awards. People
refer to that intersection by the green building. I have
tenants who have had better offers from people across the street
but they have stayed in my building because of directing their
clients there as "I'm in the green building". This building
will not be like that. This building will be vertical in
nature, which means it will not be solid glass.
Mrs. Fandrei: What percentage?
Mr. Blain: I haven't designed it yet. I would say there is going to be a
large percentage of a different material.
Mrs. Fandrei: Partly where I am coming from, not too long ago I read an
article on architecture and some of the awards that were given
and there was great comment about the glass buildings as such
and they were the cheaper building materials. It was something
that has been used in more recent years and not expected to last
as long. That is something we are concerned about. That is why
I am addressing this at this point. I don't want, if you get
your approval, to have you come along with the site plans and
have us say we don't like this. I would like to give you a
little direction, at least where I am coming from. I am hoping
it will not be all glass.
`a.
10832
Mr. Tent: Mr. Blain the article Mrs. Fandrei is referring to is the
Detroit News and they say when you want cheapness, you build
with glass. The fact is this is a control zone area and because
of that we have architectural control so I have to agree with
Mrs. Fandrei if this zoning is approved, I am concerned about
two things, not only the zoning but what is going to go up. We
are concerned with the building. We are concerned what it is
going to look like. I think it is atrocious to have all that
glass on a building. The other comment I would like to make I
feel, I asked Mr. Jonna about the office complex, and as he
indicated the market is soft. There are several articles in
Crain Magazine and several articles in the News about all the
complexes in our area and the surrounding neighborhoods and what
they are doing to entice people to come in here. They are
giving them free rents, etc. to get the buildings populated. We
are not getting any new tenants, they are robbing them from one
section to another section. I am hoping if you are successful
in this you are going to bring people in that aren't going to
move in from Southfield or Ann Arbor to come into this operation
because of a reduction in rents, etc. I am not too sure whether
we are ready for this and I am not too sure we want to hurry up
and build up that I-275 corridor because traffic is one of my
big concerns too and I have some reservations.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Blain, I was out of the City on business when you
discussed the revision to this petition and I am wondering if
you would go over that for my benefit and the benefit of the TV
audience because it is not clear to me. Would you review that
briefly?
`�. Mr. Blain: In the amended petition we are talking about leaving this
existing church and cemetery in its agricultural classification,
taking the R-5C and rezoning it to P.S. to go along with the
present P.S. and taking the back area with the present zoning of
R9-III and rezoning that to P.O. II.
Mr. Engebretson: Would it be fair to assume that parcel B up front, where you
are altering your request to a P.S. , would you then plan to
develop that for something else?
Mr. Blain: No. I want to make that an extension and the entrance into the
building. I think we should concentrate the building at the
rear of the site, which is closest to the expressway so it gets
maximum exposure.
Mr. Engebretson: Earlier Mr. McCann mentioned the proposed development of
Schoolcraft College and about your concerns for competition for
a limited number of tenants. As you are aware there is
1,000,000 square feet at Schoolcraft College another 620,000
square feet across the way, so within 1,000 feet or so you are
looking at 1.64 million square feet of office space being
proposed. The Council is presently dealing with the Schoolcraft
issue. This Commission denied that petition because of the
impact it was going to have. Within a one mile radius there is
approximately 6,000,000 square feet of office space coming on
stream, which may not sound like a lot until you consider that
10833
is approximately one-third of all of the office buildings that
are in Southfield today. The impact on the infra structure of
the City is something that was just touched on briefly here and
in the previous case but these concerns are very real, for
instance the trafic on Six Mile at the I-275 crossover in the
morning peak period, not including your new development, there
`w are approximately four cars per second passing through in each
direction. The off ramp at I- 275 northbound there is something
in the order of 900 cars per hour to turn left onto Six Mile
Road. It just looks like the traffic conditions are going to
approach gridlock that we referred to earlier. The only
question I have for you is having said that, would your
development of this property, in your opinion, be something that
you require P.O. II, going up to eight stories with all the
density in order to make this a profitable venture? Would you
feel there is reason for a downscale to P.O. zone which is
compatible to that which exists in the area? Is there a
possibility that you would consider P.O. going four stories?
Mr. Blain: No I don't think so. In my office I spend 8 to 10 hours a day
on this road at this intersection. The road system, from a
traffic standpoint, in my opinion, getting in and out of my
building and going onto I-275 in different directions, going
down to Jacobsons, that whole Laurel Park area, it is more
congested than it was four years ago, but the road system can
handle it easily. I also live in Oakland County so I come from
there to that parking lot here. I believe 8 stories vs. 12
stories or more, this is a major intersection, is a downplay
from something else. I am not the kind of a guy who is going to
come in here in front of you people with 20 stories and
'tow negotiate down. I do what I say. I don't portray a pretty
picture and do something else. We do what we say. We have
three buildings that way and we are going to continue that way.
Mr. Engebretson: I think your perception of how congested the traffic is at Six
Mile and Haggerty is perhaps distorted because you do live in
Oakland County and you have a very lousy point of reference. I
would encourage you to look at a downscale. I think I could
support P.O. because that is what we have in the area. I can't
support P.O. II because that gives you the ability to go to
eight stories, which is far too dense. We are going to exceed
the capacity of the infra structure to handle that.
Mr. Blain: You are in a major intersection here. I am not saying put up 12
or 20 stories. This road system can handle that based on other
intersections, comparable road systems around the nation and
what other people have done. Manufacturers is the only other
building that can add on right there, on the Six Mile corridor.
As a professional, eight stories is, in my opinion, not an
overuse of that property.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That R-9III, is that where your proposed building will go? The
P.S. is that going to be parking?
Mr. Blain: Yes.
fir.
10834
Mr. Vyhnalek: Why didn't you come back with a P there instead of the whole
section P.0.II?
Mr. Blain: I don't have the total site plan developed as yet. I suppose I
could have broken it up based on the design but I am presently
doing studies on the senior citizen home, which we would like to
acquire. We have talked to those people. I would like to do a
master plan involving the senior citizens and the entire piece.
That's why I haven't broken it down.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I was just curious why there is no parking classification.
Speaking of the Schoolcraft Senior Citizens Home, you are
negotiating with them?
Mr. Blain: We have talked with them. We are doing a study to see what we
can do with the building. We would like to incorporate it with
our project but we don't want someone else owning that sort of a
building that we don't know what they are going to do with it.
We are looking at it right now to see what we can do to renovate
it. It is a one user building.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is a sound building?
Mr. Blain: I think it is a great building. I don't think we can touch the
outside of the building. I think with the parking behind it, it
helps us. We could bring in an entrance along Quakertown Lane
directly across the back of the property.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the tallest building in that area?
Mr. Blain: Tallest building or number of stories?
Mr. Vhynalek: Number of stories?
Mr. Blain: Five.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you know what Kirko is going to do across the street?
Mr. Blain: Two stories.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Manufacturers?
Mr. Blain: Four stories. If you look at Manufacturers, I guess you would
have to go out there with surveyors, you say Jim you are going
to put an 8 story building there and it is going to be twelve
feet from floor to floor, where is the top of that building in
relationship to the top of Manufacturers. I think you would
find that eight story building is not going to be too much
higher than Manufacturers. The Manufacturers' building is a
tall four stories. They start out with a computer room in the
basement and it is all bermed up. I think if you look at that,
an 8 story building is not going to be much higher.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I want to ask you regarding the senior citizen topic, have you
thought of perhaps incorporating some senior citizen housing in
10835
this area. Have you thought of putting any additional housing
in that area and if you have or haven't, can you explain to me
why?
Mr. Blain: Senior citizens, for what is being developed in that area, we
don't believe is the best use in that area. I think senior
citizens next to anywhere, next to Laurel Park would be great.
There is a lot of activity. People walking around. They are
totally isolated here. I just don't think this is the place for
senior citizens.
Mrs. Sobolewski: You may see a different type of senior citizen. There are
many very capable senior citizens who do drive. I don't think
they are that isolated. You have P.S. in here which would leave
them with services but I think that would be something to
consider. Any kind of work you might be doing with the church
or the senior citizens would be very good.
Mrs. Fandrei: Kirko is planning a four-story building, 650,000 square feet.
Edward Wild, 1146 Concord Ct. , Northville: I represent the Trinity Park West or
the Schoolcraft Home for the Aged and I also represent the
partners of that facility. I don't have an ax to grind but I
would like to let you know our position. Not much, except in
the last few moments, was said about our parcel of property.
True Mr. Blain has been in touch with us in regards to our
property, however, we haven't heard much in the last couple of
months and I would be remiss in my office and as a partner of
Schoolcraft Home for the Aged if I did not come and present to
you our concerns. First of all, Schoolcraft Home for the Aged
`411. is 10 years in existence with City approval. At the time we
went in there to put in the home we were welcomed with open
arms. We had quite a project that we had outlined for that
property. The property actually was purchased for that
particular use. At the present time, Schoolcraft Home for the
Aged has 70% occupancy and the sale of the adjacent property
with the recommended height would kill the residential
operation. A three-story building surrounded by eight-story
• buildings would kill our project. The aesthetic impact, the
location behind the quaint church, cemetery and the pastoral
setting has been desirable for us. In fact, as the Trinity
Baptist Church we purchased the cemetery and the church some few
years back. With a high rise we feel, if we were still there at
that location, there would be high carbon monixide from traffic
and other detrimental aspects. Parking, noise, congestion could
end Schoolcraft Home for the Aged. I brought this map to show
you. (He presented map to Commissioners). The City Planning
Commission gave us permission to go as high as nine stories but
they begged us when the time came to not go quite that high.
The economical impact of the present facility is three stories
with two elevators, no central air-conditioning. Front and rear
crowding would reduce the value of the present value of
approximately 3.9 million dollars to whatever the price it may
bring sandwiched in between two contemporary high rise
structures. The environmental impact, the Planning Commission
10836
appears to be redesigning the master plan for this area insofar
as heights of buildings, parking accomodations, as well as
design and structure. If this change goes through as proposed,
we are seeing a substantial and significant financial loss as
far as the Home for the Aged. I don't want to be dramatic but
if you have loved ones and you had them in the building and the
*ft, windows were open, the fumes, etc. from the automobiles entering
and leaving, is that the kind of environment you would want for
your folks if they were residing in that building? We have been
there for ten years. We know that things progress. It is not
going to stay vacant forever but we are concerned with eight-
story buildings going around our three-story structure.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Wild, I would like to begin by referring back to your
comments that ten years ago when you bought this facility that
you were welcomed by the City with open arms and I want to make
it very clear that you are still very welcome and your interests
are very much our interests, so there is no misunderstanding as
to your position in the City. I think it is clear. You are
very welcome. Who owns this property that is under petition?
Mr. Wild: The parcel under petition was owned by Trinity Baptist Church.
It was bought in a few small parcels. It had a different
configuration. It was narrower and longer. We were contacted
by Schoolcraft College and we shortened the distance from Six
Mile Road in a northerly direction and we acquired some property
to the east.
Mr. Engebretson: So the model that you shared with us, did that assume that
most of this area that is under petition was going to be used to
develop that plan.
Mr. Wild: Not most of it. All of it.
Mr. Engebretson: I share your feelings. I think you made many very valid
points with respect to those people who are residents in that
home and the owners of the home and I think we have to always be
concerned about the people that have paid their dues in Livonia
and while Mr. Blain certainly can claim that he has paid his as
well, I think it is very important that we keep in mind your
interest and you heard earlier that I thought a proposal for a
four-story building would be a lot more reasonable for a
different reason. I think that view meshes pretty well with
yours.
Mr. Wild: One more comment. There is a traffic problem. If you come from
Six Mile Road in an easterly direction and you are coming to
make a left hand turn into our property right now there is a lot
of traffic going to the school in a westerly direction, which
makes it almost impossible to make a left hand turn. You will
be almost bumper to bumper with cars making a left hand turn
into Mr. Blain's property to the south. You spoke of some of
the prospects that might be going in the Northville area and the
one thing that was not mentioned, and I would like to mention it
at this time, there is a church contemplated on the corner of
10837
Six and Haggerty and this is a church of a membership of around
4,000 people and it is not a church that has Sunday meetings.
It is a church that has everyday meetings. It is Ward
Presbyterian Church.
Anna Horn, 11087 Sunset: I have been a resident there since 1955. I speak as
a current active member of Trinity Baptist Church and I just
want to make several observations in response to Mr. Wild's
comments. My one comment is that over these past years, the
zoning and the usage of the land surrounding our property has
changed to such an extent that our original purpose for further
expansion and use is really not viable any longer because of the
commercial interest to the south and to the west. We don't see
that this is a viable use to build further congregational use,
particularly in light of the other churches that are also
looking in that direction. Our purposes have changed, as
purposes do change, and so has the intent as the zoning has
changed. A question to Mr. Wild. I have worked at Trinity
Baptist West or Schoolcraft Home for the Aged over the years and
he mentions a 70% occupancy rate. Earlier on it was full most
of the time but it seems to be they are having more difficulty
filling the structure. I am sorry about that but I am wondering
if the impact of the already changed zoning is making that
decrease in occupancy what it is now and I heard Mr. Blain say
something about the fact that he was talking with Schoolcraft
Home for the Aged, which we as Trinity Baptist Church have no
connection with anymore, concerning possible purchase of that.
I am just wondering if we aren't hearing two messages as far as
do we want to keep it as it is or do we want to sell it. I am
wondering about the decrease in occupancy now and what impact
the already changed zoning has on that.
Barney Droer, 8925 Crest, Detroit: I am a current a member of Trinity Baptist
Church. I am the Assistant Pastor in Detroit. We are a two
location, one fellowship church, which operates in two
communities and we do currently own the property here that is up
for rezoning. As Mr. Wild pointed out it was our original
intent that this entire parcel be used as a ministry for senior
citizens. Due to existing circumstances of the development
around that particular parcel, we don't feel that plan of action
is currently feasible or advisable. There is a large amount of
professional office space currently in that area. That area as
Ms. Horn pointed out is having a difficult time supporting the
senior citizens housing we already have there. We had planned
to also, at one time, in addition to developing the senior
citizen ministry, put a facility up for a church which would
minister to senior citizens. The churches in this area already
support the amount of occupancy that we have and that is no
longer a feasible or advisable plan for us either. We support
the rezoning of this property in the manner that Mr. Blain has
indicated due to the fact we feel it is consistent with the
area's current development process and we feel that it also is
no longer feasible to continue in the direction that we at one
time had taken up for the senior citizens development.
Mr. Vyhnalek: To Ms. Horn. Is that a viable church at this time?
10838
Ms. Horn: Yes. We do not meet at that small church at Six Mile and I-275.
We meet at Middlebelt Road south of Five Mile. The little
church is used for Trinity House Theater Group.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It has some activity a couple of nights a week?
'41' Ms. Horn: Almost every night of the week.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-1-25 closed.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to propose a tabling resolution so that we can sort
out all the facts associated with a relatively significant
project particularly to give us the opportunity to see how the
Council resolves the Schoolcraft/Duke project to the immediate
north. I think that there is also justification to have the
Planning Commission review in significant detail all the various
traffic studies that have been conducted in the recent past,
most particularly in the last six to eight months, in that
particular area, so that we can make an informed decision here.
While doing that, I would propose also that there be some
dialogue between the City and the developer to see if he may be
amendable to a reduction in the intensity of the zoning request.
Those kinds of things can't possibly be brought up for
consideration and settled in a two or three minute or a two or
three hour discussion. That is my proposal. On those three
points I would propose a tabling resolution.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#9-193-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 19, 1989 on Petition 89-8-1-25 by Trinity Baptist Church,
Inc. and James Blain Associates requesting to rezone property located
on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the
I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from P.S. , R-5C,
R-9III and AG to P.O. II, the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 89-8-1-25 to date uncertain.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek,
Fandrei
NAYS: Kluver
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Kluver: In making your motion and taking your vote, I just found an
inconsistent pattern to try to piggyback something through. I
think it should stand on its own as opposed to waiting for
another decision. What you are saying is you have to wait for
the Council to make a decision before you can effectively look
at this. That was the comment that was made and that was the
purpose for the tabling motion. I can see the logic to tabling
10839
this petition to review and understand the impact to the area
and to do the necessary studies to support it but not wait for
another decision. This Commission has made a decision on that
project.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-8-1-26
*ft. by Shirley J. Alameddine requesting to rezone the south 39 feet of
Lot 104, Folkers Farmington Acres Subdivision, located on the west
side of Hubbard Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-3A to P.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating their office has no objection to the rezoning proposal.
Shirley Alameddine, 29536 Foxgrove Rd. , Farmington Hills: My parents lived in
this home for almost 45 years and we inherited it when they died
in the middle eighties. We kept it and had some problems
renting the property. I have some pictures showing the
development around it. When listing it with a realtor we found
we had a problem because the land was split zoned and part of it
is ML and the other part is residential. We have had difficulty
in selling the property because anyone who would be interested
in buying it would only have about 61 feet to work with and it
was recommended by the realtor that we petition for parking so
we could sell the property and 39 feet could be used for parking
to operate the business. We feel this area does not work as a
residential site because across the street and beside it there
`p are businesses. So when you look out the window, you are
looking at quite an eyesore. It is also dangerous because large
trucks are backing in and out. Our residents will be moving
shortly because they have small children and the lot is not
completely fenced. (Ms. Alameddine presented her pictures to
the Commissioners?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Ms. Alameddine, do you have a buyer for this property?
Ms. Alameddine: We are negotiating at the moment. I believe we will have one.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is it a light manufacturing business?
Ms. Alameddine: No. They will probably be building storage units.
Mr. Vyhnalek: They would build on the north two-thirds and the south one-third
would be parking. You are encroaching on R-3A and if we start
to let some parking slip by for thirty some feet in this
section, maybe a block or two down someone will try the same
thing and pretty soon that line for ML will go deeper into
residential and that is the problem some of our Commissioners
are having.
Ms. Alameddine: I understand that you were contemplating making it all
residential. We are saying that as a residential area, it is an
10840
eyesore if you have a home there and therefore we would like to
be able to sell the 61 feet to be used for industrial and to
have the parking on the south side.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Question to Mr. Nagy. Is a place like Your Attic is that in ML?
Now
Mr. Nagy: With all storage within the building, it would be permitted. No
outside storage would be permitted in a ML zone.
James Duncan, 20446 Hubbard: I would like to say thank you to Commissioner
Vyhnalek. I sympathize with Shirley but if you allow this to
turn into parking, from my understanding, the Macro Tool will
petition to move the wall a little further toward my property to
make that parking. McLaren Engine asked for the same thing to
make that field into parking, which was denied, from my
understanding. I have only lived in this house for a year and a
half now. To me if you allow this to go, then what you are
doing you are opening up the door to McLaren Engine, whom you
have turned down, and Macro Tool will come to me and say they
want to buy some of my property so they can have a little more
parking. I don't want to see that happen. I have problems now
with some garbage floating over my brick wall from the parking
lot when they eat during lunch hour. When it rains I have a lot
of junk coming off the sewer out of their driveway. During the
day most everyone in our residential area is gone. There is
traffic there but it is relatively quiet after business hours
but as far as from my viewpoint, if you allow this parking, you
are allowing more traffic. That is one reason why I moved there
because it is a relatively quiet neighborhood. I have had
problems with kids coming in the parking lots. I don't want to
`, see that happen any more. It is a nice yard. I moved there and
I plan on doing a lot of renovations. I don't see a problem
with anyone living there. There are people living there now and
they are perfectly happy. By putting in a parking lot, that is
encroaching on the neighbors across the street. I have enough
problems now with people throwing stuff over the wall. I don't
want them to get any closer than they already are.
Robert Wyman, 20321 Shadyside: About selling their house. The house next door
was only on the market a couple of weeks. I am opposed to
coming any further into residential.
Catherine Sullivan: I am one of the directors of the North Central Livonia
Civic Association. This civic association, I think, is the
oldest one still in existence in Livonia and this is the reason
for the forming of the association to hold the industrial zoning
line at 300 feet and protect our homes. We would like to see
that rezoned residential and a wall put up between the
commercial buildings and the residential area.
Glen Dorcement, 20445 Hubbard: I bought this house and it was only on the
market for three hours and it is a hot selling property. That
whole area is developing fast and it seems to be developing in a
residential manner. I am against it. I didn't buy the property
to have a parking lot next to me. It was kind of sneaky because
\`
10841
it was sneaked in but I was unaware that this petition was going
on when I bought the house. I will reinforce my opposition to
this petition.
Carol Eisley, 20445 Hubbard: I would like to point out that the same reason
that the petitioner claimed she wants to change the zoning so
they would not have to look out and see businesses is the same
reason we are against it. We don't want to look out and see a
parking lot. It is a nice neighborhood but reducing the
residential to parking is going to increase the traffic. I
think when you reduce the residential zoning, you are going to
increase the inflow of people who do not have the same interests
as people who live in the community.
Sharon Pommerville: 20404 Hubbard: I have been there for 21 years and I am
against this petition.
Frank Perkees: I own the property at 32425 Eight Mile Road. I have been in
that building ten years. I have had one welder stolen. I have
had one air pump stolen. I have had one 1974 Mustang stolen. I
have had four hi fi's stolen out of my parking lot behind my
building. I am against a parking lot there per se unless there
is one big wall built there so they can't come on my property.
Robert Hastings, 20220 Parker: I am speaking as a resident of that area. We
worked with the City in 1962 to change that zoning. This is
ridiculous. This is the worse thing that could happen to us and
if you let that infringe, everyone else wants to move back.
Because this property is split zoned, I can understand it is
kind of hard to sell but everyone down the line has the same
`• problem. If you bought there, you are stuck with it. You are
not going to sell it for top price. I am very much opposed to
this.
Carl Barker, 66284 S. Mohawk, Ypsilanti: I am one of the partners that wants
to build here and we are requesting this parking lot for a
particular reason. There are 100 feet there. Sixty-one feet is
light industrial and thirty-nine feet is used as R-3, which is
residential. The area is identical to the tool company that has
a parking lot with a retaining wall across the street. This was
set up over 20 years ago as light industrial. We are requesting
a parking area so we are able to take care of the situation and
possibly bring in future income for this City.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-1-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-194-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 19, 1989 on Petition 89-8-1-26 by Shirley J. Alameddine
requesting to rezone the south 39 feet of Lot 104, Folkers Farmington
Acres Subdivision, located on the west side of Hubbard Road between
Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3,
10842
from R-3A to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-8-1-26 be denied
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning would provide for the further
encroachment of non-residential zoning into a residential
neighborhood.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area as well
as the residential neighborhood in general.
3) That the continued use of the property for residential purposes
is in the best interests of the neighborhood as well as the City
of Livonia.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-8-1-27
by Charles Tangora & First of America Bank-Plymouth requesting to
rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft, west of
Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28 from M-1 to P.S.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
fir•
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department
stating their office has no objections to this rezoning
proposal.
Charles Tangora, 32900 Five Mile Road: Most of the time when I appear before
you to request rezoning it is for an intended use. In this
particular case, we are here to request rezoning to conform the
property to a use that has been in existence for a number of
years. I think those of you who have been around for a number
of years first recall that this property was developed a number
of years ago by the Michigan National Bank and was developed on
an M-1 zoning, which should not have been permitted to use as an
M-1 because it is a prohibited use, but that was approved, so
now that our petitioner, First of America Bank, has bought the
property, they did it with full knowledge that Michigan Bank had
operated here for a number of years and received a surprise when
they were told they could not operate it as a bank without going
through the rezoning. That is what we are here for to request
rezoning to professional service so that the First of America
Bank can operate the particular building as it has been operated
in the past.
10843
Mrs. Sobolewski: Is the real estate office still in there now?
Mr. Tangora: It is out as the bank does intend to operate the entire
building.
`' Mrs. Sobolewski: Are they going to make any renovations to that building?
Mr. Tangora: It is going to be several more months before they can occupy it
and the plans are not finalized at this time. They have plans
to do some better landscaping than what you see over there right
now and maybe some type of facelift.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Nagy, even if this is granted, and I really don't have
any problem with it, there is still going to be a waiver use on
it?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mrs. Sobolewski: The ZBA gave it a variance allowing a bank so now we have a
bank there and then the bank decided to vacate the building and
the variance still ran with the land?
Mr. Nagy: It did, however, because of the abandonment of the initial use
by Michigan National Bank, that is now void. There was not a
continuous, uninterrupted use of the land for bank purposes.
When Michigan National Bank went out there was a office use made
of this not a banking use.
Mrs. Sobolewski: So then the variance is null. So the real estate office
continued to operate there.
Mr. Nagy: Real estate is a different use than banking. Banking is a
commercial use. Offices are permitted in a manufacturing zone.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I guess my question is, could this continue to be a bank? Are
we ready to give up an M-1? I don't have any problems with the
bank being there but if Bank of America should decide to leave
like Michigan National, then we have taken some M-1 away from
the area.
Mr. Tangora: It is a prohibited use in an M-1 area and that is why we are
here to try and change the zoning so it conforms.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I can see that.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Can you tell me in a few short sentences why First of America
will succeed where Michigan National failed?
Mr. Tangora: I am really not a banker. There is a representative here. Ken
Curry is the President of the local First of America but from
what I understand Michigan National Bank was not unsuccessful in
this location. They ran a good branch office. There was just a
change in policy to eliminate some of the branch offices.
Mr. Tent: A question to Mr. Nagy. If the petitioner is successful in
getting the zoning change, a waiver use will be required. Is
that correct?
10844
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: With the waiver use, will they bring in a site plan then showing
the landscaping so we do not have to be concerned at this point
with the landscaping?
Mr. Nagy: That is true. They will have to bring in appropriate drawings
as that is an application requirement for the waiver use.
Mr. Kluver: If you were to get the zoning, is it your intention to put in a
drive-in service in there and also a 24-hour teller service?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-1-27 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
##9-195-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 19, 1989 on Petition 89-8-1-27 by Charles Tangora & First
of America Bank-Plymouth requesting to rezone property located on the
south side of Schoolcraft, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 28 from M-1 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-8-1-27 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional
services for this area of the City.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is in keeping with the
concept of encouraging office uses within the City's industrial
corridor.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543,
as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek,
Fandrei
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-8-3-4
by the City Planning Commission requesting to vacate the west 25' of
a 30' easement for public utilities retained over the vacated portion
of Melvin Avenue between Bretton Road and Fairfax Avenue in the
NowSoutheast 1/4 of Section 2.
10845
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating their office has no objections to the vacating proposal.
%sr However, the above legal description does retain the easterly
five feet of the original 30 foot wide easement due to the
proximity of a 72 inch diameter storm sewer in the area of the
east property line.
Mr. Engebretson: I want to make sure I understand the Engineering Department's
concern relative to the 25 feet and the 5 feet. Has that all
been taken care of in the wording of the petition?
Mr. Nagy: Yes in the legal description furnished to us by the Engineering
Department and that legal description will be incorporated in
the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Chris Meadows, 30011 Bretton: It is part of my yard and I am for it because I
want to build a garage on that property and I need this release
to give me the okay.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-3-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-196-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing held on September 19,
1989 on Petition 89-8-3-4 by the City Planning Commission requesting
`'aly to vacate the west 25' of a 30' easement for public utilities
retained over the vacated portion of Melvin Avenue between Bretton
Road and Fairfax Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 89-8-3-4 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the subject easement is no longer required for any public
purpose.
2) That the proposed vacating is recommended by the City's
Engineering Department.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code
of Ordinances.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-8-6-7
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 14.02 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to add Professional
Offices to the uses permitted in the RE district regulations.
`o.
10846
Mrs. Sobolewski: I would like to ask John in amending the ordinance to say
professional offices, do you need to say professional services?
Are we putting P.S. in there or P.O.?
Mr. Nagy: The R.E. district already allow general offices. There is some
question whether this includes professional office uses. Under
the structured P.S. zoning district, permitted uses are
professional offices and then it says waiver uses are general
offices. On the other hand when you go to manufacturing
district area, you have all uses permitted in ML. If you look
at ML, it would say all uses permitted in R.E. R.E. says
general offices. Following that pattern a manufacturing zone
could have manufacturing limited uses, could have research
engineering and general office uses. The question is whether or
not because of the structure of the P.S. district, whether or
not that includes professional office use. In order to clarify
that question, we are now recommending that the R.E. district be
amended so it clearly indicates general office and professional
office uses.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-8-6-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
##9-197-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 19, 1989 on Petition 89-8-6-7 by the City Planning
Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 14.02 of the
Zoning Ordinance so as to add Professional Offices to the uses
`" permitted in the RE district regulations, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
89-8-6-7 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That professional offices are legitimate uses to be permitted in
a research and engineering zoning district.
2) That this proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will
provide for additional types of office uses in an RE zoning
district while at the same time continuing to maintain the
restrictive nature of the district.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. LaPine, 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. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-198-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
10847
hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and
Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32 from RUF to R-1; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
`'411m. Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. McCann, and
unanimously approved, it was
#9-199-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to
amend Sections 9.05, 10.05, 11.05 and 30.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543
so as to provide more definitive language as to the building height
limitations set forth in P.S. , C-1, C-2 and C-3 districts.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and unanimously
,Nur approved, it was
#9-200-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council
Resolution #843-89, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does
hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine
whether or not to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road in
the area of Louise and Morlock in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from
M-1 to R-2; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#9-201-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 584th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 15, 1989 are
hereby approved.
`rr.
10848
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine,
Fandrei
ABSTAIN: Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-202-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 585th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on August 29, 1989 are hereby approved.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-203-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table
Petition 89-8-8-28 by Southeastern Michigan Management Co. for
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a retail sales building on
the north side of Seven Mile Road between Loveland and Mayfield in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 until the study meeting of September
26, 1989.
'4111. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-204-89 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Livonia Embassy
Suites Hotel for wall signs on property located on the west side of
Victor Parkway in Victor Corporate Park be approved subject to the
following condition:
1) That the Sign Plan for Embassy Suites Hotel prepared by Skyline
Electric Sign Co. and submitted by Patrick M. Nesbitt Associates
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-205-89 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Permit
Application by Frank Frangione for a Satellite Disc Antenna on
property located at 32361 Cambridge in Section 15 for the following
`w. reason:
10849
1) The Planning Commission feels the size and location is
inappropriate to the neighborhood.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
`r adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 586th Regular
Meeting and Public Hearings held on September 19, 1989 was adjourned
at 10:25 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
FRaymor W. Tent, Secreta ✓
1
ATTEST:
William LaPine, Chairman
jg