HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-11-22 10409
MINUTES OF THE 569th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 22, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 569th 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 7:00 p.m. , with
approximately 35 intersted persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Sue Sobolewski
R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Jack Engebretson
Raymond W. Tent William LaPine* Brenda Lee Fandrei**
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, 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 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 tonight. 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. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
88-10-1-30 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located at
the northeast corner of Six Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 7 from C-2 to P.S.
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 our Engineering Department which
states there are no City maintained water mains or sanitary sewers
available to service the subject site.
Mr. Tent: I just have one question. Is the property presently owned by Mr.
Hesano?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, Mr. Hesano is the owner of record and he is in the audience
this evening and he will appear before the Planning Commission to
make some comments.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would like to make, this comes before us at the
request of the City Council, Resolution #824-88, to again study this
particular parcel as it relates to zoning. That is the reason for
us bringing it here tonight.
`r.
Edward Hesano, 27460 Beacon Square: I am the owner of this property.
10410
Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you owned the property subject to this rezoning
petition?
Mr. Hesano: Approximately ten years. I bought it to use and then we had a
recession and I backed off. In fact, I sold a going business so I
could devote full time to the project and at this time I have not
been able to develop the project as I wanted and a few years back I
had it sold to Mobile Oil if they could have put a service station
there. After some time they decided not to pursue it. About six
months ago I put a "For Sale Commercial" sign up and had numerous
calls. Mr. Nagy will attest to that, and the people who called
didn't call back because the City of Livonia didn't favorably react
to whatever they wanted to do and that could be anything from a
deli, service station, restaurant, party store, you name it. They
just don't seem to want anything there that is commercial.
Mr. Morrow: I guess I would like to ask Mr. Hesano, I don't recall studying too
many proposals for this particular site in C-2 so I don't know how
you can say the City didn't want anything in there.
Mr. Hesano: What I am saying, people have come down to the City Hall and asked
about their particular proposed project and come back to me and say
we haven't been favorably reacted to. I don't know who they spoke
to at the City Hall or where they go.
Mr. Morrow: I don't know either. We have C-2 property and it probably could be
developed.
Mr. Hesano: I understand what you are saying. I can only go by what they say.
I say go down to the City and you can find out rather than me
telling you something and there be a discrepency in what the City
will actually support. Sometimes they don't even get back to me,
but I have had a few who do call back and say they don't want the
service station, etc. In fact, Mobil had an option and they refused
to exercise the option because they felt it would not pass.
Mr. Morrow: A couple of the items you mentioned are waiver uses and are not
permitted within that classification so they would have to come
forward with a waiver use request. I guess I just want to go on
record to say if there were attempts to develop that property within
the C-2 zoning classification, I have not seen anything in the last
few years. I want to preclude the thought that the City is
disuading people from using this property as it is zoned.
Mr. Kluver: Just to amplify Mr. Morrow's comments, as a member of this
Commission since 1971, the only petition I recall for that piece of
property was petition that you yourself placed before us in 1979 and
that was for a party store and I do believe we saw the same major
problems as far as public utility service to service that particular
site.
Mr. Hesano: The services are there now because of Manufacturers Bank. We were
going to bring them in at the time I proposed to build. I sold a
business to go into this place.
Mr. Kluver: The point I am making again is the only petition which has ever been
before this Commission was the one you proposed to us.
*4111I
`
10411
Mr. Hesano: I don't know how far Mobil Oil got with theirs. I know they lost
money. They gave me option money and they lost it because it could
not be approved.
Mr. McCann: What is your intention? It is my understanding you are objecting to
`4.a. this proposed change of zoning?
Mr. Hesano: Yes, I would like to sell it real quick. I would like to get my
money out of the property. If you change the zoning, I am sure I
would not get as much money out of it plus what difference would it
really make. It is still going to be a single story building. I
would like to see a nice office building there too.
Mr. McCann: You are not intending to do anything with the property as far as
developing it?
Mr. Hesano: I now have to sell it because of what I wanted to do, the cost is
too much for me right now.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The reason the Planning Commission wants P.S. , professional service
zoning, is we feel that a developer could put something in there
that would be compatible to the rest of the area. We don't think we
want a deli or a service station with those beautiful buildings
along Six Mile and Haggerty. That is why the Council asked us and
we are leaning towards changing the zoning to professional service.
We feel it can be sold and a reasonably attractive one story office
building could be built in that area.
Mr. Hesano: I don't feel I can get monetarily what the property is worth if the
property is rezoned. As commercial property it is worth more and it
has been commercial these number of years.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Hesano, of course you realize when you bought that property ten
years ago you didn't pay for it what the land is worth today.
Mr. Hesano: Absolutely. I also understand my money has been sitting in that
property and has not appreciated unless I get more money for my
property than I originally paid for it.
Mr. Tent: We are trying to help you now because with our Master Plan the
Commission can encourage the development of that particular area.
The P.S. zoning would be more compatible and we feel by going
through this particular change, you should realize something from
this property.
Mr. Hesano: You are not servicing the people living in that area. Any
commercial use is going to service the people in those offices and
houses.
Mr. Tent: A lot of the buildings in that area will have service oriented
operations within themselves. This all relates to developing the
property.
Mr. Hesano: I have buyers today if it remains commercially zoned.
Mr. Tent: I don't want to belabor this but the fact remains as both of my
collegues have indicated, and they have been on the Commission quite
a while, they have seen what is proposed so all these buyers should
put up or shut up.
10412
Mr. Hesano: It wasn't put up for sale until Mobil came to me. I had every
intention of opening my business there. I thought I could put a
nice food and beverage store there. A very classy operation. That
is why it was never put up for sale until recently. I could have
constructed a Quick Pik or a 7-Eleven type store, that's not what I
wanted. That is why I have not gone and pursued it. I don't think that
is what you want and I don't think that is what should be there. I think
what you want is a nice classy business. That is what I had in mind. I
can put in a convenience store but that is not what I presented to
Commission when I came here ten years ago and I don't want to go back on
that.
Mr. Tent: Just in conclusion, for all the liquor stores we have here and party
stores, we could have one big party in Livonia so you would just be
adding to the concerns I have.
Mr. Morrow: This property has come before us a couple of times before for
rezoning purposes and again, the Council has requested we look at
it. I have been on record that I support P.S. zoning for that
particular corner because I feel it is compatible in that area. On
that basis I just think the proper zoning for that corner is a P.S.
classification.
Mr. Hesano: I don't feel you are servicing the people but that is my opinion.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-10-1-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
adopted, it was
'to.
#11-213-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
22, 1988 on Petition 88-10-1-30 by the City Planning Commission to
rezone property located at the northeast corner of Six Mile Road and
Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from C-2 to P.S. , the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 88-10-1-30 be approved for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are the
most compatible to the surrounding uses in the area.
2) The proposed change of zoning will be consistent with adjacent and
surrounding zoning in the area.
3) The P.S. zoning district will provide for uses that will complement
the Manufacturers Bank office facility located adjacent to the
subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-10-1-31
by Allan N. Mendelssohn, M.D. to rezone property located on the north
side of Plymouth Road, west of Newburgh in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
30 from RUF to R-9.
10413
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Mendelssohn had submitted his petition for a R-9 zoning
classification, which would allow a two-story building, and he really
wanted between three and four stories, which is classified as R-9I so
this petition was withdrawn. The City Planning Commission could not
cancel the public hearing because it was advertised in the paper but we
‘'► will not have the public hearing. It is terminated at this point
and rescheduled for December 20th. I am sorry for the inconvenience but
he brought in the plans and they were not in accordance with the
proposed zoning. You will be notified, if you were notified on this,
you will be notified of the public hearing on the 20th. I am very sorry
and we do apologize. Thank you very much.
*7:18 Mr. LaPine entered meeting at this time.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-10-1-32
by Owen J. Cummings for Associated Diversified Investors requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Stark Road, north of
Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 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
they have no objections to this proposal.
Owen Cummings, 33900 Schoolcraft, petitioner: We are the property owners
immediately south of the proposed rezoning area. Just to give you a
little background, our law offices have been located in this building
immediately to the south of the subject property since 1973. We were
previously located on Five Mile Road near Inkster in Livonia. Initially
when we constructed this building here it was primarily a multi-use
''r' professional office with various uses. The parking didn't become a
problem until the law firm that I am in actually occupied the entire
building. The nature of our law practice has changed, because it has
become more litigation oriented, and as a result parking has become a
large problem now for about the last four years. Because we are
litigation oriented we have a number of depositions with other attorneys
coming in and witnesses coming in and court reporters coming in and it
has really taxed the parking that was originally there for the building.
As a result we purchased the property immediately to the north and we
are proposing to have that zoned parking to accomodate our building.
Originally I went to the ZBA under provisions of your zoning code to
allow us parking up to 50 feet of adjacent land use and in affect the
ZBA said they would prefer to see entire parcel rezoned parking. They
tabled our petition and asked that I ask the Planning Commission for
rezoning. The Master Plan for the City calls for professional service
zoning for the entire parcel right up to the school property and
directly south from the line that would be the western most edge of the
proposed rezoning area down to Schoolcraft. Professional service for
the entire area has been on the Master Plan. There is a building
located on the property right now occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Morgan who
have owned the property since before we built in 1971 and they are there
and they would like to stay there but they recognize it would not be
compatible to the zoning. Mr. Morgan had open heart surgery a couple of
years ago and they are reluctant to move but they know they have to
move. Their one request was that they could stay there as long as it
was agreeable to the City but they would move whenever necessary. We
saw
don't propose to have a mixed use of the property. Our total use would
be parking. I think, however, as a consideration to them, we said they
could stay there as long as the City allows them to.
10414
Mr. Vyhnalek: As I remember from last week's study you were only going to have
parking on lower 50 feet.
Mr. Cummings: That was originally when we went to the ZBA because that was all the
distance that was permitted. We would propose the entire parcel for
parking.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are there any plans in the future for a another building on the
site?
Mr. Cummings: No.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Cummings, your proposal is, as I understand it, for the
whole property to be changed to the parking classification. Are you
then going to demolish the building and pave the whole area?
Mr. Cummings: We would pave a good portion of the area and yes, we would remove
the building. I indicated to the Morgans that we would keep the
house as long for them as possible. I am talking a year.
Mr. laPine: Is your ultimate decision going to be to pave the whole area?
Mr. Cummings: To pave a substantial part.
Mr. LaPine: I don't want a substantial part. If you are going to pave, I want
to see the whole thing paved at one time.
Mr. Cummings: It will be paved, except for those areas bermed or landscaped.
Mr. LaPine: I now understand.
Mr. McCann: With regard to the what the Chairman asked you regarding the 50 foot
extension into the subject area, the plan we saw, you are going to
keep the house for the next year or two so until that time you are
going to pave 50 feet into it and turn that into parking?
Mr. Cummings: No. It would have to be in conjunction with the whole area.
Mr. McCann: You are not going to park there at all until next year?
Mr. Cummings: We have had cars parked there temporarily.
Mr. McCann: What are they parked on?
Mr. Cummings: Gravel. When we went to the ZBA we asked for permission to park
there on a temporary basis and they suggested we put gravel in
there.
Mr. McCann: You are using access driveway of the home?
Mr. Cummings: Yes, the driveway area.
Mr. McCann: That is what you would do for next year?
Mr. Cummings: No we will prepare plans for the full development of the property.
Mr. McCann: You would demolish the house?
10415
Mr. Cummings: Yes, or move it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, if this petition did pass through us and the City Council,
he would have one year to put asphalt down?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Cummings, the original petition as submitted showed that you
intended to use 44 feet of south residential lot but I am confused
now as to what you are talking about. Is the proposal just rezoning
the 44 feet or the entire property which is 165 x 243? If you were
to get the zoning change, would you develop that entire piece?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Cummings is rezoning the entire area. Is that right Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Cummings: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Tent: I would like to see something in writing where we could analyze
this. Come up with some drawings. We are all asking questions and
there could be some misunderstanding.
Mr. Cummings: The entire area would be for parking. The reason you see what you
see is the ZBA requested that I immediately get a petition into you
folks and rather than going back to engineers and say redo the
drawings, I made a promise to them that I would get it in within 30
days. Mr. McDonald said we wouldn't have to redo the drawings as
long as everyone clearly understood we would be using the entire
area for parking.
N. Mr. Tent: Would you be willing to work with the Planning Department staff on
the drawings?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Tent, we are really concerned about zoning tonight and once it
is rezoned, he will have to come back with site plans.
Mr. Tent: We are not just rezoning this 44 feet?
Mr. Nagy: The entire parcel is up for rezoning and the legal description
covers the entire area and he does have to have site plan approval.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make is that I kind of go along with Mr.
Tent because it is kind of going fairly deep into a residential
area. Even though I don't say we have to have a true site plan, I
would like to see a concept of what he intends to do.
Mr. Cummings: There is parking immediately to the west of the proposed rezoned
area. We would really be butting up to the present parking on south
side and also on the west side. To the north it is right-of-way
until you get to the school access drive. I would be more than
agreeable to have a schematic proposal into you folks. It was just
suggested by the ZBA that I get a petition before you people with
`..- some dispatch.
Now
10416
Mr. Engebretson: I simply want to make a point Mr. Cummings, that given the fact
that you aren't planning to do anything until next construction
season, I get the impression that you are not particularly concerned
if we put this issue aside for a couple of weeks to make sure we
understand precisely what you are trying to do?
Mr. Cummings: I would have no problem with that.
Mr. Kluver: Basically I want to make the same point Mr. Engebretson has brought
out. Construction season is behind us and you could put together a
plan and identify the whole program so we could take the kind of
action that would support you.
Mr. Cummings: If I could give you a sketch plan would that be agreeable?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Yes it would.
Joan Lovasz, 14100 Stark: We live across the street from them. It is not
compatible to what we want. We would like less building on this
street. We have too much now.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is just going to be a parking lot.
Mrs. Lovasz: Yes but it is going deeper and deeper and taking away less houses.
Eugene Lovasz: I would like to add the only thing that bothers me is that they are
not only incorporating it as a parking lot but the size of property
is rather excessive. Later on who is to say he will not come before
the Commission again and want to build another building there? To
say he is going to park cars there now is fine but who is to say he
�•. will not put another building in there?
'rr,. Mr. Vyhnalek: He will have to come before us and Council and have the property
rezoned. With this proposed zoning change he is limited to parking
only.
Mr. Lovasz: We have enjoyed this area. It is a shame to have him start
encroaching on our area. The area along Schoolcraft should be
professional service not residential area down Stark Road. If he
wants to do it anyways he should have gone west of office not north
down Stark Road.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to respond to his question. We are studying it and we
haven't passed anything. You asked a question as to what is to
prevent him from coming in and putting up a building. If he should
prevail with the parking zoning, that classification precludes any
building. It can only be used for parking. He would have to come
back and rezone it. P is just for parking.
Mr. Lovasz: Like I say, the size of lot is large enough to slip a building in.
Dorothy O'Day, 14050 Stark: I do not want parking, building, or anything else on
that street. We have enough. I have lived there since 1955 and I
intend to stay there the rest of my life. I don't want to move and
I keep my property up and I don't want that parking lot there.
�- Kathleen Dobson, 14116 Stark Road: We have been there since 1965. In that period
of time we have had Livonia Family Y, Eddie Edgar Arena, all these
�.. P.S. buildings going in. When we moved in there it was a rural
area. We have really gone along with the progress but I think you
have reached the limit when you ask us to have a parking lot for
10417
public building looking out our windows. I think you have just gone
too far. I think we need to take a look at this. I understand
there was availability for him to go west on Schoolcraft but he
chose not to do that. If you put a parking lot there you are asking
for trouble. The kids will be coming through from school and
wrecking cars. You are inviting trouble by putting a parking lot
that close to a junior high. That particular age group is a
problem. I really think you are inviting trouble.
Fred Dobson, 14116 Stark: I am opposed to it for namely the same reasons everyone
else is.
Mr. LaPine: Do you own the property or do you have a contingency to buy the
property if you get the zoning?
Mr. Cummings: We own the property.
Mr. LaPine: How long have you owned the property?
Mr. Cummings: About one year. We are buying on a land contract. The Morgans
still live there.
Mr. LaPine: The building that you are in now, are there all lawyers in that
office?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: John Nagy, when that building was constructed they were required x
number of parking spots for so many square foot of building. How
`... have we created a parking problem there now? Has something changed
where we have created a parking problem now where we didn't have a
v., problem before.
Mr. Nagy: At the time that property was rezoned and the site plan submitted,
the site plan was in full compliance with the off-street parking
requirements. Apparently what has happened is the peculiar needs
that his tenants have placed upon the property are such that the
parking is inadequate based upon our standards. I think it is a
unique situation.
Mr. LaPine: Maybe the problem is he has outgrown the building.
Mr. Nagy: I think that is the motivation behind this request.
Mr. McCann: The property just to the west of your property, have you ever
negotiated for that piece of property?
Mr. Cummings: Yes, I own that property.
Mr. McCann: What would be the problem of turning that into parking? It seems to
me it would be just as suitable.
Mr. Cummings: The problem with that is the present parcel we have up for rezoning
is more suitable in that it already has parking on two sides and it
is an extension of the use that surrounds it for the most part. It
`.. is just more compatible with the use of the building itself. It
would be an extension of our present parking lot.
Now
Mr. McCann: Does the drawing pretty much characterize the building location and
building next to the location as well?
10418
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Mr. McCann: It appears to me either way you would have to remove a home.
'''+ Mr. Cummings: Either way we would have to remove a home. We would have parking
right next to residential property for the Schoolcraft site. With
this request it is only an extension of parking where parking is
already on each side to the south and west. If we were to go to
the west, we would be introducing parking up to this gentleman's
residential property line. (Mr. Cummings pointed this out on map)
Mr. Tent: I have to agree with Mr. LaPine when he indicated this building has
overgrown its needs and Mr. Nagy indicated this is a peculiar
situation. Now this must prevail throughout the City. Are they in
violation with their parking as it stands now Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: They have made use of this residentially zoned area for off-street
parking and they have been notified that it is not permissible. The
residential zoning of the subject site does not permit off-street
parking for the adjacent property. With respect to their existing
use at the time it was submitted for site plan approval it fully
complied with the P.S. zoning district regulations and still does.
They are not in violation.
Mr. Tent: To accommodate those cars when they park in the off-street parking
area on the subject lot, they are in violation of the zoning
ordinance?
Mr. Nagy: They are in violation when using the subject site for off-street
r... parking. Residential zoning that is in existence on this property
does not permit that it be used for off-street parking for office
Now purposes.
Mr. Tent: Where he is parking cars now it is illegal and we are trying to
circumvent that now by providing some additional space. So really
going on Schoolcraft, the R-2, do you have other uses for that
property? Are you going to put a building up there? You own that
property now. Is that why you are not using that for parking?
Mr. Cummings: We have no plans for extension of our office building in the R-2
right now. The people who own that property were people we knew.
The husband was transferred to North Carolina. They came to us and
asked us if we would purchase the property and we said we would. We
have renters in there right now. We have no plans right now to
extend our building.
Mr. Tent: I am sure that when you purchased the property you must have
purchased it with the intent to develop it. Your intent to develop
that piece of property would be another commercial building? I mean
whether it is five years from now or two years from now.
Mr. Cummings: That is quite possible.
Mr. Tent: You would prefer to have parking in the back?
Mr. Cummings: I believe it would be much more logical to have parking expanded
where it already occurs.
Now
Mr. Tent: Even if it is infringing into the residential neighborhood?
10419
Mr. Cummings: When we purchased the property the Master Plan called for the entire
parcel as being professional service. That is why we bought that
particular piece of property. That is why we are here tonight. It
did not call for professional service west of where we are.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: He has made an accurate statement.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Cummings, how many parking spaces do you believe you will get
out of that lot?
Mr. Cummings: I believe we need possibly 30 to 50 parking spaces depending on how
much land is devoted to landscaping.
Mrs. Sobolewski: That will make a total of how many?
Mr. Cummings: I would imagine about 112 to 115 parking spaces total between the
two lots.
Mrs. Sobolewski: When you were to the ZBA did you have a plan that you presented
to them?
Mr. Cummings: Yes just for the additional 15 to 20 parking spaces. The ZBA looked
at that plan and said what is the overflow that causes the parking
problems? It was then decided to pursue the rezoning of the entire
piece of property and get the problem solved.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I think a study could be done on this. I think a nice parking
area could be made with good berming.
Mr. Cummings: I did go to the Building Department and requested permission to park
,tow cars on the property while the rezoning petition is in progress and
Mr. Fegan permitted that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-10-1-32 closed.
Mr. Kluver: I would like to table this petition until our study meeting of
November 29, 1988 and at that meeting I would like to have from Mr.
Cummings a total number of fixed parking requirements. How many
employees he has in the building with the exact number of spots he
must have in order to park those employees' cars and from that we
can measure that against the existing ordinance requirements. I
want to know exactly how many parking spots you have to have.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Kluver, I think we asked him for a sketch.
Mr. Kluver: That's fine but I also want to know how many people and how many
cars he has to park.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-214-88: RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 22, 1988 on Petition 88-10-1-32 by Owen J. Cummings for
Associated Diversified Investors requesting to rezone property located
on the west side of Stark Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to P. , the City Planning
Commission does hereby table Petition 88-10-1-32 to the study meeting
of November 29, 1988.
10420
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 88-10-1-33
by Kenneth Neumann for Duke Associates requesting to rezone property
located on the east side of Haggerty Road north of Six Mile Road in the
Now Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-5C and P.L. to P.O. and from P.L. to
P.O.III.
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 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 also have a letter in our file from Maureen W. Vollmer, President
of Gold Manor Community Association stating she is against this
rezoning because Livonia has been developed as a residential city
with zoning to provide industrial, commercial and public land and is
known for its good city services and good schools. She finds it
hard to believe another developer is coming in with additional
office space considering the amount that is under construction now.
She urges the Commission and the City Council to vote no on this
rezoning and suggests that impact studies be done so we will still
be proud of Livonia in the 1990's and want to maintain our homes in
this area.
Charles Tangora, 32900 Five Mile Road: I represent the petitioner in this case.
Tonight we are planning on putting on presentation of the proposed
rezoning. For that we have Kenneth Neumann who is the architect and
who has been before the Planning Commission and the City Council on
numerous occasions in the past. Namely, I think you will remember
him from the Victor project. Also the petitioner, Duke Associates
retained Kenneth Neuman for their first project and we have people
here from Reid, Cool & Michalski, who have made a traffic study and
will make several comments on the traffic analysis and finally with
us is Ernest Maddox, General Manager of Duke Associates. I think
most of the commissioners are familiar with Duke Associates. They
are the developer of the office buildings on the north end of
Schoolcraft College, and they have experienced very good results in
leasing those buildings. Their anticipation of this particular
project is that at the time the first building on this development
would come on stream, approximately two years from now, their second
building will be constructed only when the first building is leased.
Within six months of full lease the second building will start
construction so as far as they are concerned, it is a good leasing
market. There are studies here by Cushman-Wakefield, which is a
well-known broker. Their involvement is, not as a developer but
involved with marketing building and preparing impact studies. We
found their study shows there is a need in 1990 and 1991 for
additional office space. I am going to turn this over to Ken
Neumann. We will be available after Mr. Neumann and the gentleman
from Reid, Cool & Michalski to answer questions. Mr. Maddox is
available for any comments you have too.
10421
Mr. Morrow: I just want to ask Mr. Tangora a couple of questions. Because we
are dealing with public land at this site and we see the petition is
brought forward by Duke, part of this land, as I recall, was part of
a request by Republic Airlines to purchase it at one time for a
reservation center. Is that true Mr. Tangora?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: That was precluded for what reason from sale?
Mr. Tangora: Evidently Northwest, which at that time was Republic Airlines, and I
was involved with that petition, that company had to relocate their
reservation center within a very short period of time. They had
picked out a site in the City of Romulus and they felt Romulus was
not the place to be. They had to find a site and they picked out
a site in Livonia at Schoolcraft College. Unfortunately Schoolcraft
College, because it was brought to them with a short decision making
time, had not done any study at that time with regard to disposing
of surplus land and their Board of Trustees turned them down.
Consequently, then Republic went across the street. It was their
second choice.
Mr. Morrow: The key thing was the Board of Trustees had not made a study and had
not made a decision. I suppose it was the Board of Trustees
decision so in my notes and the paper I saw there was no reference
to any board action. I guess I want to be comfortable that the
Board of Trustees has decided that this is surplus property and that
this rezoning request is properly before us. Is that a safe
1 assumption?
`,. Mr. Tangora: That is my understanding. Mr. Maddox is here and he can give you a
first hand analysis.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to know is that unanimous or a split type of vote by
the college trustees? I just want to make sure we are studying a
valid petition, as far as I am concerned. Because it is public
land, I would like to see something from the college saying it is
surplus land.
Ernest Maddox, General Manager of Duke Associates: A letter from the Schoolcraft
College Board of Trustees dated October 31, 1988 accompanied the
original application.
Mr. Morrow: It was official board action?
Mr. Maddox: Yes it was.
Mr. Morrow: Was it totally supported by the board?
Mr. Maddox: I don't know their vote. We have been in contact with the board
over the last several months to go over the application and program.
They are totally knowledgable of this petition.
Mr. Morrow: That clears up my concerns.
Mr. Kenneth Neumann, Neuman, Smith & Associates, 26877 Northwestern Hwy. ,
`"' Southfield: I have some drawings here. (Mr. Neumann displayed drawings). This
drawing indicates the property in question. The property is
approximately 38 acres in size and although, we are not here on the
10422
question of site plan approval, we thought it was appropriate to
show the intent of what Duke sees for this piece of property. The
development plan therefore, is a general plan that outlines our
notions about property development and also the request for changing
the zoning as a consequence of that plan. The property happens to
sit adjacent to Schoolcraft College. The bottom edge of the site
fir. sits approximately one-quarter of the distance from Six Mile to
Seven Mile and the site diagram indicates that proximity, which in
fact is like the diagram on the wall. The notion has been to
develop the site with a different characteristic towards that
portion of property which is related to Haggerty Road from that
portion which is related to the expressway. The notion that we have
developed is consistent with the other development because of the
relationship to the expressway, that buildings of a taller nature
are appropriate for the expressway and because of that fact we have
said that, the portion which is closest to the expressway, we would
like to ask in our request for rezoning from P.L. zoning to P.0.III,
to allow buildings up to the maximum of 12 stories in height. For
that portion which is close to Haggerty Road for P.O. zoning that
would allow buildings up to a maximum of 4 stories. The site itself
indicates a potential road to be developed into the site which would
feed from Haggerty Road. I think it is important to state we think
this is a unique piece of property and one which is appropriate for
this kind of zoning because this site is located between Six Mile
and Seven Mile Roads and where we have two interchanges on the
expressway. It is very unusual in the world to find what Livonia
has, which is a development pattern generated by three expressways.
There is no place else, that I know of, in the metropolitan area
that has such a major intersection in relationship to an expressway.
In fact, the traffic study will suggest that the majority of traffic
to the site will be coming to and from the site from the expressway
system so as to be as little of an impact on any of the adjacent
road system. Carl Kleitch is here with the traffic study. This plan
is essentially what we would like to see on the site. We have a
model which indicates the character of this development. The height
of the buildings are a consequence, we believe, of the relationship
to the expressway and are a consequence of the fact there is a large
portion of the site developed in green space. These buildings will
have in their character, when developed, a relationship to the
buildings Duke is building on the opposite side of the campus. (Mr.
Neumann showed aerial photos) I thought it was appropriate to show
this because I think, it is logical when a highway like this is
developed within a City, there will be a need for having
developments along it. We think if there is any location within the
City, that this is the place for this kind of development. One of
the letters that was read this evening, there was a question about
impact of this proposed development. Yes, there would be additional
services required by this type of development. This development
would also produce somewhere in the area of a million to one and a
half million dollars in taxes when the project is completed. There
will be money coming to City to compensate for those types of needs.
Lastly, let me say that the development is not seen to be something
that would happen overnight. Each of these buildings will take a
minimum of one and a half years to build and at least one to one and a
half years to lease so we are looking at a long term project. Duke
wouldn't be considering this if they didn't feel there was a need for it
and that the buildings would not be leased. It is their intent to
10423
develop the major road system through the site. We believe that the
impacts of this project are minimal. We are aware there is no storm
drainage system and we will have to detain water. This plan can
accommodate the holding of storm water. We believe those kinds of
technical problems can be dealt with and are dealt with as part of
the plan.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This project will take how many years?
Mr. Neumann: Eight to ten years.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I have in our notes here that says that the City of Livonia added
455,000 square feet of new office space in 1988, nearly doubling its
Class A space. The new office space reduced occupancy levels from
80% in 1987 to 56.6% at the present time. What we have now and what
we have on board it looks like they are not leasing it out. Do you
agree with that Mr. Neumann?
Mr. Neumann: I would like to turn over this matter of leasing to Mr. Maddox. I
might tell you their existing building has been leasing very well
and it is their understanding based upon their track record to date,
they should still be able to complete the leasing of their first
phase project.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Neumann, I want to question you on two things you said. You see
money isn't everything. You indicated we would get two million
dollars in tax revenue. Is that correct?
Mr. Neumann: I said probably between a million and a million and a half.
'Nu. Mr. Tent: We had a similar situation with the racetrack. The City got a lot
of money out of that but we had horrendous traffic problems and we
still do. So money doesn't really solve the problems that we are
looking at. You indicated a leasing arrangement with the college.
There was a study made in the Detroit News or Free Press two months
ago covering metropolitan Detroit area, Wayne, Oakland and
surrounding counties. It indicated we have an oversaturation of
office complexes and buildings in Detroit, in Novi, all over and
they can't lease the buildings so what they are doing, they are
going ahead and allowing tenants to stay in a lease free just to
keep the buildings occupied. Now you are talking about bringing in
a building here with one million square feet. We also have almost
three million worth of square footage in existing and proposed
buildings in Victor complex. My big concern here is what magic
words are you going to use to get tenants to fill these buildings
when the article said they will not get any relief from this over
supply of buildings for many, many years. I would like to clear the
air on this.
Mr. Neumann: I would like to go on record and say I don't believe I said the
money from the taxes would solve all the problems in the world.
What I said was there would be services that would be required
because of the size of this project. We may need additional police
personnel because of the project. There will be an impact upon the
community that will require money for services.
Mr. Tent: We are going to eat up that money to provide the services.
10424
Mr. Neumann: I believe there will be excess money from the taxes that will take
care of the issue of additional monies required for those specific
services. The second thing I would like to say in regard to the
office market is our firm works with a great number of developers
all across the local metropolitan area and we are dealing with a
series of developers from outside the metropolitan area, all large
`o. scale national developers who have come to Detroit metropolitan area
because they see this as a strong market place. We have many new
projects starting by some of the most sophisticated developers in
the nation and that leaves me to believe they all realize there is
money to be made. These projects can be built. They can be filled
up and I think, if there is any firm that is conservative in this
world, Duke is one of those. They will not build this project if
they cannot make it work.
Mr. Tent: We don't want to have empty buildings in the City. Anything I would
approve of I want to make sure it is usable and viable and good for
the community.
Mr. Neumann: The last study I have seen indicates, I think, Duke was 26th largest
developer in United States and they have millions and millions of
dollars worth of developments across the central part of the
country. They are the kind of owners who retain ownership. They
are in it for the long term. They have demonstrated in their
buildings along Seven Mile Road that they have built quality
products. I would like to turn this meeting over to Ernie Maddox.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Maddox, the study I referred to two months ago is, if you people
are really that good, are you going to run everyone else out of the
business because you are going to corner the market. What is wrong
with the study that was made two months ago where they indicated an
excess of office space and they can't give it away?
Mr. Maddox: There are studies that show all kinds of things. There was a study
made by Cushman-Wakefield that showed 27% vacancy. On the way in
tonight WJR was talking about Economic Growth Council and they said
metropolitan Detroit area went from 8 to 10% to 2% last year. The
problem with any study is when it is taken. A new building comes
on. The day it comes on the vacancy rate goes up drastically.
There are wild swings. We think probably the stable vacancy rate on
I-275 is 12 to 14%. In terms of our building, we generally allow
approximately 18 months to lease a building. We will have this one
leased in 11 months. Those have been tenants of all sizes. The
letter that Mr. Nagy read talking about slowness of construction, we
are actually ahead of construction on our second building.
Mr. Tent: What is the vacancy rate on Seven Mile?
Mr. Maddox: This is on our new building. The one that is not done as yet. We
have two leases signed in that building.
Mr. Tent: What is the vacancy rate on the building you have completed now?
10425
Mr. Maddox: 60 to 65%. By the end of the year it should be 95% leased. We are
leasing about 10% a month.
Mr. Engebretson: I have several questions. Mr. Neumann referred to the fact that
in his estimation most of the traffic that would be generated by
,ftiv this development would quickly get on the freeway and go away. What
percentage of the tenants that you see coming into these buildings
would be coming from other areas than Livonia?
Mr. Maddox: I think in our existing building only 2 of 16 tenants come
from Livonia. The rest have come from outside of the metropolitan
area. A number of companies have small offices in two or three
locations and have combined them and increased the office area. The
market in Detroit is very strong in terms of people moving to
Detroit and setting up headquarters.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Neumann also referred to the projected estimate of the tax
dollars that would be generated by this property so obviously you
have some idea of the construction value?
Mr. Maddox: I didn't do that on basis of construction value. That is a business
I don't know a lot about. Basically our historical experience is
between $1.00 to $1.50 per square foot is what property tax rate
will be.
**8:27 Brenda Lee Fandrei entered meeting at this time.
Mr. Engebretson: I am also interested in your projected use of Fox Drive which is
a very narrow street and which I presume is a City street.
*ft'' Mr. Maddox: No, Fox Drive is a private road. It will be widened and paved. We
don't have complete engineering plans done as yet, but the
anticipation is where Fox Drive meets Six Mile it will be a
Boulevard which will extend about 500 to 600 feet north . The Six
Mile interchange will be widened. We have made plans for a
potential traffic light. Fox Drive would be built to good quality
standards, probably City standards.
Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like you are including the cost of doing all of those
improvements in your costs.
Mr. Maddox: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Can you confirm the benefits to Schoolcraft College as reported
in the Livonia Observer? Which was I believe to be $250,000 per
year.
Mr. Maddox: That is approximately the number. The number may actually
exceed that.
Mr. Engebretson: How does that work?
Mr. Maddox: Schoolcraft College would have to answer that more directly than I
could. I believe they are prohibited from selling property based on
their public status. They have done a lot of legal research so what
�... we are proposing to do is enter into a long term lease agreement for
approximately 75 years. We pay them for the use of that land. As
we build it we will pay them considerably more and the number quoted
in the paper.
10426
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy to get information on that relative
to specifics of the agreement and in addition, clarify the exact
position of the Board of Trustees relative to this action. Mr.
Maddox, assume the total development was completed, what would you
4w estimate the daytime population of that development to be in terms
of the people?
Mr. Maddox: The best estimate I would have is the number of cars, which is a
little over 4,000. It is anticipated that would probably equal the
population.
Mr. Engebretson: So you would assume each person would arrive in their own car?
Mr. Neumann: In developments of this size although you require parking for one
car for 200 square feet for general office space, we found in
projects of this size when you have multiplicity of tenants, there
will not be the same number of people within the project that the
auto count calls for. We may have 4,000 cars but I believe we would
never have more than 3,000 people on site at one time. The basis of
one person for every 200 square feet is a very high occupancy number
for project like this.
Mr. Kluver: Mr. Maddox, you alluded to square footage. We are looking at a
zoning situation but obviously square footage also comes into play.
You alluded to the fact that square footage in these types of
developments seemed to float. We have some numbers that we have
just had made available to us and I would like to make comments
regarding those. On the freeway corridor, present buildings and
buildings under construction total 2,111,122 square feet. Of those
buildings 69% of that number are vacant. Roughly 1,456,000 square
�► feet is vacant. Also, we have proposed and approved an additional
983,000 square feet to be constructed on the I-275 Corridor.
Looking at your project, it will have a tremendous impact on the
area. When this project was started initially, with Duke &
Associates and Schoolcraft College, I wanted to know what the total
time period to complete this development would be?
Mr. Maddox: We are based in Indianapolis. When we first came to Detroit we did
a lot of study. At the time we looked at Detroit we were in
Cincinnati and Indianapolis. We looked at this site in Detroit and
finally made a choice to come here. When we started talking to
Schoolcraft College we were only talking initially about property to
the north. Schoolcraft did their study and came to the conclusion
that they had surplus property and they could turn it into a long
term financial stability for them and then began discussions with
us. When did that happen? I suppose six months ago. We were well
aware of everything under construction. I am sure in your report
you have a couple of buildings in that total that won't be done for
a few months.
Mr. Kluver: Possibly there is one that may never get done. The point I am
getting at is I am looking at a major project. We are not just
looking at an office building, we are looking at an office park when
this project is completed. Once the project is completed it would
equal what we already have built on the corridor. What I have in my
r.. mind, as a layman is, you have spent six months putting this
10427
together and gathering information along with building up
incremental data to support your project. You have a very well
detailed traffic study. Coupled with this is the primary services
to the area. In particular the water system, sanitary and storm
sewers. There has been a major problem with water pressure in the
northwest section of Livonia. I question the impact this project
would place on these services. I guess, the problem I have is the
impact it is going to have on the City and throughout the City. We
are going through logistics and all the numbers but there is also an
impact that we never put a dollar value on and that is quality of
life and what does this mean to us? Will it do anything to our
quality of life in Livonia? Livonia has a rather unique situation.
It is possibly the hotest development area in the country and will
continue to be that way but, that doesn't preclude the prudent use
of the land. I am looking at a lot of material here and I don't
think that I can intelligently talk about it. You have spent six
months putting it together. I have no idea how it was assimilated.
It is going to take considerable time for that information to filter
down to the laymen. I speak for myself, not for the balance of the
Commission. This proposed project is a city in itself to some
degree.
Mr. Maddox: We spent a lot longer than six months studying the market. This is
a community and that is what Duke does.
Mr. Kluver: I congratulate you on your project on Seven Mile. It is
outstanding.
Mr. Maddox: We have a very long term interest in our projects. We do it fairly
carefully. We do it slowly. We tested the market at Seven Mile and
found it to be a very good market and we feel the time is right to
begin this project. I think the quality of life in Livonia would be
'rr. improved. It will be changed and in the change some people will not
like it as much as what they had. A project like this pays its own
way.
Mr. Kluver: I appreciate that and that is good. You have spent six months so
far and I have spent an hour and 55 minutes. This is a major, major
project and I appreciate what you say. Possibly some of it is
right. Possibly some of it will happen and possibly some of it will
not happen. The traffic consultant can give us an impression. It
is a zoning situation now and the magnitude of this project, you are
coming in with is approximately one million square feet.
Mr. Tent: I would like to echo Mr. Kluver's sentiments. I agree with you 100%
so you have another Commissioner here who agrees with you.
Mr. LaPine: I want to get something clear in my mind. The lease agreement you
have with Schoolcraft College is as you build the buildings and
develop the parcel then you pay Schoolcraft College x number of
dollars. You don't pay them for the whole parcel at the onset? If
you get the zoning now, you are not going to pay Schoolcraft
College right away. You pay them as you develop the land, is that
correct?
Mr. Maddox: When we reach our agreement, at that point we begin to pay them
minimum base payment and it immediately goes on the tax rolls. As
we develop the land, we pay them a higher rate.
r..
Mr. LaPine: The next question. After 75 years what happens?
10428
Mr. Maddox: Schoolcraft becomes the owner of everything we built.
Carl Kleitch, Traffic Engineer with Reid, Cool & Michalski: Let me briefly go
through the procedure that I used for the traffic analysis. As Mr.
,r Neumann has indicated this is the site from a traffic point of view.
There are two interchanges, Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road and we
believe the majority of the traffic will make use of those streets.
We feel that the intersection that will be impacted the most will be
Haggerty and Six Mile Road and that was the focus of our report. We
believe approximately 30% of the traffic to the site and from the
site will travel through that intersection. What we did was to
gather the existing traffic volume at that intersection on November
15 for the morning peak hours of 7:15 to 8:15 and the afternoon peak
hours. We began our study by getting what the existing traffic
volume was. We did a manual count on the turning movements. How
many drive through, how many turn left and how many turn right.
With that base information for morning peak hours and afternoon peak
hours, we increased it all a blanket 5%. That was to take into
account other developments in the area so we just put a blanket 5%
increase on existing traffic. Our third step was to add traffic
generated by this site. That's the proposed new development, and we
used the ultimate development, slightly over 1,000,000 gross square
feet for an office building and determined what morning peak and
afternoon peak hour traffic would be. Those figures are for the
a.m. entering trips 1,306 and for the exiting trips it would be
1,160. These figures are based on current information provided in
Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation.
We have existing traffic increased by 5%. The capacity analysis
results are for the morning peak hours, the capacity analysis
relates to the amount of delay an average vehicle would expect. The
Now level of service in the morning would be D. An average delay of 34
seconds per vehicle. That is acceptable. A through D is
acceptable. For the p.m. average delay would be approximately 24
seconds which is level C. In both cases the level of service would
be acceptable. To achieve that we had to propose some changes. We
pointed out two areas that are available to make changes. One is
adding laneage and the other is changing signal time. We found
there was no need to add lanes but signal operation would have to be
changed. In particular the left turn phase for east and west bound
traffic would be required to be changed. We would maintain the 70
second cycle that is currently there. We also looked at driveway
movements in and out of the site and found that deceleration lanes
would be required to ease movement into the site. Our projected
distribution is 55% of the traffic will use the Six Mile driveway
and of that traffic 40% is going in or out to east and 15% going to
west. The remaining 45% will use the Haggerty driveway. The
breakdown there is 30% to and from the north and 15% to south.
Basically our conclusion is that with signal modification and with
the addition of a left turn lane and a small modification in
allotment of green time we could achieve a level service of D in the
morning and a level of service of C in the afternoon, which are
acceptable.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You indicated that 40% of the traffic would go east on Six Mile. Do
you recommend a light there?
10429
Mr. Kleitch: Yes we do. I don't believe it will be needed for the early stages
but at the end.
Mr. Kluver: If this facility was completed based on your study, then among the
Ntar conclusions is that Haggerty Road south of Six Mile would not have
to be widened. It would remain a two lane road?
Mr. Kleitch: We did not study the roadway link between intersections.
Mr. Kluver: Why wouldn't you study the link? Haggerty Road today is
the link between, Five, Six, Seven and Eight Mile Roads when you
have problems on the expressway. What about Six Mile west? Would
you leave that two lanes?
Mr. Kleitch: Yes.
Mr. Kluver: There is an exit ramp off 275 that goes to Six Mile. Fox Road is
probably 150 yards to the west of the light?
Mr. Kleitch: It is relatively close.
Mr. Kluver: The morning rating was D at peak time. Would you say with your
analysis and your study there wouldn't be any stack up of cars back
along the freeway exit ramp to Six Mile?
Mr. Kleitch: Obviously there is going to be some impact.
Mr. Kluver: In your conclusion you can't tell me what that impact is?
Mr. Kleitch: Not at this time. I don't believe there will be a problem.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Kluver brought up a number of points I was going to bring up.
This study you took is that impact study based just on your project
or on other projects in that area?
Mr. Kleitch: The steps they took was to add 5% increase in traffic at that
intersection to take into account other developments in the area.
Mr. LaPine: The other developments are the Jonna project? We haven't talked
about the impact the Shenkman property might have on Seven Mile and
Haggerty. The study you made was limited to what impact the traffic
would have strictly on your project instead of all the other
projects going in there. I can't help but believe we are going to
have backups. All you have to do is go to Troy. On Big Beaver and
I-75 getting off that exit in the morning they are backed up a mile
to a mile and a half.
Mr. Kleitch: We did try to take into account through use of the 5% factor other
uses in the area.
Mr. LaPine: It is going to be more than 5%. I get the impression that your
people assume that most of the traffic is going to come along the
expressway. People who are coming from the north, they are not all
going to be coming in on the expressway. The only people coming
from the east would be people that live on the east side like Grosse
Pointe. Anyone coming from the north, it would be more logical for
them to use surface roads.
10430
Mr. Kleitch: We included people coming from the west like Plymouth and Ann Arbor
who would come from M-14 to I-275.
Mr. LaPine: Did this study also include the Schoolcraft College? How many
students go there? How many cars are parked in Schoolcraft College
,' parking lot?
Mr. Kleitch: Yes it did. The existing count we took did take into account all
the traffic that is currently there.
Mr. LaPine: You haven't projected what will happen when these other projects are
done?
Mrs. Fandrei: The students going to and from Schoolcraft College aren't all going
at the same hours as people exiting from this project.
Mr. Kleitch: Yes. We identify the peak hour that is currently in operation out
there and to that peak hour we add the peak trips that would be
generated.
Mrs. Fandrei: What would the peak hour be for the Schoolcraft College students?
Mr. Kleitch: I am not sure.
Mrs. Fandrei: You don't know what the peak hours are for students there in the
afternoon? How do you come up with 5%?
Mr. Kleitch: We don't know exactly what the peak hour is so we go out in morning
between 7:00 and 9:00 and we count 15 minute intervals and we find
�o. the peak 60 minutes. Same thing in the afternoon. It is very rare
that peak hours don't occur during those four hour periods.
Mrs. Fandrei: Most of the projects are on the Livonia border. Have you considered
prospective developments on the Northville border along Haggerty
Road?
Mr. Kleitch: We did apply a 5% factor. I am reading that you are communicating
that the 5% factor is too low. We could certainly adopt a different
factor and work that into our analysis.
Mrs. Fandrei: How do you come up with 5%?
Mr. Kleitch: It is hard to know all the projects so we try a blanket factor.
Mr. Engebretson: You said in your opening remarks that this traffic study that you
were referring to, that a copy would be made available to us. Can
you tell us when that will be made available to us?
Mr. Kleitch: You are welcome to them at any time.
Mr. Engrebretson: I would appreciate having one. I feel at a tremendous
disadvantage to try and deal with the mass of numbers being
discussed. They are all starting to blend together in my mind. I
think we very much need to have a copy of that and I think we can,
in turn, offer you perhaps a copy of a report that may enable you to
Num. do a more scientific study of the impact of the other projects in
10431
the areas that are under development or approved for development.
You will find that the numbers I am talking about exceed the size of
your development by several times and I for one believe that judging
this petition in all respects such as traffic, impact on City,
I impact on quality of life, etc. The project cannot be considered in
isolation because it is part of a much bigger picture and I would
suggest the Planning Department can make available to you detailed
information with respect to these other things we are concerned
about. I think you need to know this other data. You are the
expert and obviously you deal with standard methods of taking
statistics and developing conclusions. We need to see that too. I
would like to inquire about one point, the morning trips into the
facility. Would you mind repeating that?
Mr. Kleitch: The figure for entering trips in the morning is 1,306.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to go back to Mr. Neumann's comments about
population of the facility. He indicated it would be approximately
3,000 people vs 4,000 cars. They made an estimate based on the
number of parking spaces. I believe it is safe to assume that the
vast majority of these people would be arriving around 8:30 a.m. ,
plus or minus one-half an hour, so based on those facts, this
building is going to be half leased or I am misunderstanding
something. Perhaps you can straighten me out.
Mr. Kleitch: That number represents the arrival rate of one hour. Other trips,
not quite at this high level will be arriving prior to and after the
peak hour we suggested. Office buildings will have salesmen and
other people arriving at different times.
`r.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess you are the expert but those of us who live in the area
and use those surface streets find it incredibly difficult to enter
Haggerty Road during the day. I tried that out during the middle of
the day and I am telling you it was difficult and I felt there were
some risks and in addition coming to Six Mile I estimated 25 cars in
front of me looking to make a left turn. I agree with Mr. LaPine
that the people coming from the north are likely to use service
streets and I guess this leads to another concern of mine about
traffic. There are going to be people shortcutting down half mile
roads through residential neighborhood streets so I think the point
is we can't settle any of this here tonight. I think we need a lot
of information. I believe it would be a serious error for us to
consider this petition in isolation. We need to consider this
petition in relation to the entire City of Livonia and especially to
the two square mile area. I would appreciate having the information
requested and I would ask you in return to take what we can give to
you to review the things we feel so strongly about.
Mr. Kleitch: I would welcome that additional information. We will provide Mr.
Nagy a copy of our report tomorrow. We found in our analysis that
the afternoon traffic operation of Six Mile and Haggerty was
operating at a very congested level. This was in our analysis. We
think even today a timing change may be necessary. You are right
there are times when there is congestion out there now but, we
believe that the congestion can be overcome.
Mr. Kluver: You have made other studies along this area, have you not? What
other studies have you made within the I-275 corridor and how
recently?
10432
Mr. Kleitch: The Blain traffic study, the Jonna project traffic study.
Mr. Kluver: That was in last 2 1/2 years?
Mr. Kleitch: Yes.
\r. Mr. Kluver: Did you consolidate some of that data from the Jonna and Blain
studies, which projects are across the street from this proposed
development, and marry that data into this traffic study? Is that
shown in this analysis?
Mr. Kleitch: No. We did not have time to incorporate all those numbers. We felt
this is an accurate study given the assumption of the 5% increase.
Mr. Kluver: The 5% increase encompasses the Jonna project and Blain project?
Mr. Kleitch: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Are you saying the only thing you considered was Six Mile and
Haggerty. That is the only thing you really studied.
Mr. Kleitch: In this report - yes.
Mr. Tent: The thing that bothers me is you don't have the time. We don't have
the time either. We want to have all the facts before us. This is
a public hearing. I resent the fact that you didn't come prepared
and it bothers me because you are expecting an answer from us
tonight and half of the documents we would like to look at aren't
here and I agree with Mr. Engebretson and Mr. Kluver, we are talking
_..New about the quality of life in the City of Livonia. We want to look
at everything and we want people coming before us to present all the
facts.
Mona Emerson, 18850 Levan: I am concerned about the traffic that will be coming
into our neighborhood. The developer tells us all these figures.
They don't live in my house and every single time a building opens,
the traffic on my street has doubled. Now this project is coming.
I think that has to be addressed. Mr. Neumann, I am not trying to
be rude to him but he tells us he has ideas of what is good for
Livonia. I am Livonia. I am a part of this community. Mr. Neumann
hasn't knocked on my door. He hasn't asked me what's good for me.
I don't think this development is good for me or my property value.
We have to look at Southfield. We have to look at Troy. We can see
what has happened in Southfield. We also know in Southfield there
has been a tremendous decrease in property values. Is this what we
want in Livonia? Do we want flight from this City? What will we be
left with? Twelve-story buildings, eight-story buildings where
nobody wants to live in our City. We have to take these kinds of
things into consideration. We do know there is a vacancy rate. We
also know every time an office building goes up, someone leaves
another office building and moves over. Fifty years from now
Livonia could be another Detroit. We don't have much property left
and I think it is very, very, very important we think of the future.
I would like to think maybe my children would want to buy a house in
Livonia. This has been a good community. It is a good community.
`o.• There are joggers jogging on our streets at night time. There are
10433
women walking in the morning. I think that is pretty special that I
can go out and walk in my City at 10:00 at night if I want to do
that. We have to consider those kinds of elements. I appreciate
this Planning Commission thinking and asking those kinds of
questions. Nothing has changed. I got on the phone asking people
have you changed your mind about development. No one wanted the
k., Shenkman proposal. Everyone said the same thing. We don't want
this for our City. In this corporate race for development what are
we losing? I hope we will consider what Livonia might be in the
future. He talked about traffic. He addressed all kinds of
questions and there are so many things I could think of to say. I
read an article that said Livonia and some other communities had to
start looking at themselves if they wanted to continue to be
desirable places to live. It said Livonia was already on the border
and it would have to watch itself carefully or we could lose
valuable population. Just recently we received nationwide
recognition for a stress free City to live in. My brother who lives
in Florida read this and was quite impressed. Sally Raphael had it
on her radio show. Is this what we want to lose. I like Livonia
but we are not going to have it if we continue to let every
developer build what he thinks is best for us.
Susan Pitts, 36393 Dardenella: I would like to go on record that I oppose this
project. It would negatively impact the quality of life in this
area. Even though I-275 could be considered a natural barrier
between this project and rest of the residential community, I feel
there would be enough spill over into our area to make this area no
longer a desirable residential area.
Roy McPhail, 36476 Bennett: I am totally opposed to this project. First of all
44111.
these developers are here to make a profit. They come up with a
12-story building, a 8-story building and a 4-story garage. Now
they know this will probably never pass. If it does pass, they have
plans and if it doesn't pass, they will lower their standards. I
have seen it with other major developments. I have seen it with
the Shenkman property. I was here with the conception of Laurel
Park. Laurel Park started out with two major tenants which never
developed. It has Jacobson. It was supposed to have been below
ground and now it is all above ground. The major impact is the
traffic in this area. He is talking about a 5% increase. Look at
Six Mile. Look at the three major housing developments on Six Mile.
Nobody has said anything about this traffic. I don't believe this
area can hold any more traffic than what it is supported right now.
We have Six Mile and Seven Mile, all two lane roads. I think if you
look at all the other projects in this area, if they are now only
35% to 45% complete, what happens when they are filled up. Look at
Laurel Park. That is not fully developed yet. What happens when it
opens up. The developers are talking about people coming from other
areas other than Livonia. What is this going to contribute to the
life and welfare of people in Livonia? I am totally opposed to this
and I hope you consider the impact on people living in Livonia.
Mr. Morrow: We spent a lot of time tonight on the viability of this project. I
am convinced these people would not be here tonight if they hadn't
done extensive study. I think the larger thing we have to consider
•r.. here tonight is we are talking about zoning. A tremendous impact in
10434
zoning. Our charge is to find out if that is appropriate zoning in
that corner and are we well served with what is already there or on
books. Does Livonia really need this particular project even though
the traffic could absorb it at 99% occupancy. As Mr. Kluver
indicated this is a major project, one that cannot be resolved in a
couple of hours. I guess the bottom line is do we need this
" .• intensive zoning in addition to what we already have on the books?
Mr. McCann: I have listened tonight very closely to the petitioner and what his
intentions are to do with this project. He proposes a very nice
looking project. However, the comments from the board, the comments
from the audience and my own feelings with regard to this section
are with the amount of expansion going on in the northwest section
of Livonia, it would not be something that is feasible at this time
to even start considering it and it is my understanding the board is
looking to table this. It is not my objection to table it to get
more information, my objection is to send a signal out to the people
that we are not at some future point going to see this as being a
feasible project in the near future. I think we can't use that much
development in the near future.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add to the comments made by Mr. Morrow and Mr.
McCann. I agree with both of them. I don't think there is any
question about the concern we have whether this is proper zoning. I
am concerned we may be well upon our way of developing a Livonia
version of Detroit's Ren Center where we put our desirable buildings
into a small section of our City. I am really concerned about this.
I think this matter cannot be settled in a two or three hour public
hearing. That would be a hasty decision. I this this matter needs
to be tabled. I think there is to be no misunderstanding as to
signals. I think we need to verify that our feelings are correct.
I have at least a dozen questions I would like to discuss with the
Chief of Police, the Fire Chief, DPW and other department heads and
I think we need to put this matter on the table allowing each
commissioner an opportunity to formulate their questions. Let's
move with caution. What we are doing is going to set the quality of
life in Livonia going into the 21st century. I think Mrs. Emerson
made some extremely valid points with respect to quality of life,
stress free environment, the fact that a woman can go out jogging
and walking alone without carrying a weapon or having an attack dog
along as a companion. I think we need to make it very clear where
we are coming from and get on with our business tonight and put this
matter off until a future meeting.
Mr. Tent: The fact is about the message Mr. McCann said. I too want to
deliver a strong message and I want us to do our homework. I want
to make sure that whatever we come up with they understand why we
are opposed. We should not be too hasty to turn it down today and
it materializes at some other point. I say let's do our homework.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree with my fellow commissioners. We need more information. We
need more time to study it but at the same time I remember not too
long ago when we were facing residents of the area and we were
facing other proposals for development in the area and one of the
10435
things we felt strongly about was that developments should be on the
west side of 275. That is where this proposal is. If we are going
to have future developments in Livonia, to me this is the site that
should be considered. I am giving the signal to our petitioner I
don't think this is totally negative. I think the density is a
little bit overbearing but at the same time I do feel this is the
Nor location that should be considered for this type of development.
Mr. LaPine: I will take an opposite view of my fellow commissioner who just
spoke. I don't believe that just because it is along that corridor
it should necessarily be rezoned to what the petitioner is
requesting. I can understand the benefit to Schoolcraft College.
It is good for them. In 75 years they will come up with a large
complex of buildings. I think the basic thing here is how much
office space do we want in Livonia? Just because it is along 275
doesn't mean it has to be an office complex. I believe he has come
in with a fine complex. I think we have to consider people who live
in the area. We were here first. You are causing problems to the
people who live in that area. Any time any development of this
magnitude comes in it causes problems. This talk about tax dollars.
We could hire policemen today and we would still have to hire more
police. With this project all we will do is catch up. I think this
project is way too big and maybe in the future if all these other
projects go ahead and we need additional office complexes, maybe at
that time the City will feel we need it. It is my understanding the
Mayor has negotiated with Mr. Shenkman. Mr. Shenkman has taken us
to court. I think maybe what we should do is table this, study it
some more but I don't want any signals going out in support. If I
had to vote on it tonight I would turn it down. Until such time as
we have something to go by, I don't think we should go along with
rsio, any more high rise office complexes.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-10-1-33 closed.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we should table this item with no specific date in order
to
give the petitioners time to get us all the information that we
asked for and to enable us to make a more informed decision.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-215-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
22, 1988, on Petition 88-10-1-33 by Kenneth Neumann for Duke Associates
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty north
of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-5C and P.L. to
P.O. and from P.L. to P.0.III, the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 88-10-1-33.
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 88-9-3-6
by Anthony Vettraino of Steve Petix Beverly Hills to vacate a portion of
a 20 foot wide public alley located south of Grand River Avenue between
`'► Antago and Rensellor in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
10436
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
if the above section of alley were to be vacated, it is recommended
that a full width easement be retained over the same area in order
'04111, to accommodate an existing sanitary sewer system. Further,
according to their records there are at least two separate
ownerships east of the alley being considered in this petition.
Therefore, it appears that the alley at the rear of Lots 19 through
26 should be retained as a public alley with an appropriate public
turnaround area being created at the westerly end thereof adjacent
to the proposed vacated alley. We also have a letter in our file
from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to the proposal
provided easements are reserved the full width of the existing
alleys to protect their existing equipment. Also in our file is a
letter from C. R. Charest on behalf of Drs. Frank McDevitt and
Robert Koprince who maintain medical offices at 27513 Grand River
Avenue. He states his clients wish to object to the proposal
because of the fact they use the alley to access Antago Street so
they can exit onto westbound Grand River Avenue. he states the
alley is regularly used by their patients and business invitees of
the Ever-Seven Building, which is contiguous to the doctors'
property and vacating this property would create an inconvenience to
many parties.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, according to that letter by the doctors. My
understanding was that alley was just going to be turned into a
parking lot or used as part of a parking lot?
Nov Mr. Nagy: It will become a private driveway for access to their off-street
parking lot.
Mr. McCann: Would you remind me of the purpose behind this.
Mr. Nagy: The request really originated by the Zoning Board of Appeals. At
the time that board examined the request on the part of the site
plan petitioner when he appeared before their board to build on the
intervening property between the alley and Grand River. Your
property owner there chose to build at a zero setback line in
conformance with established buildings along the area. In order to
meet his off-street parking requirements across the alley, the
Zoning Board of Appeals in their examination of the overall area
made the suggestion that perhaps the alley should be investigated to
determine whether or not it is needed for public purposes. We
reviewed property owner's request to initiate this vacating action.
It appears to me it will remain as an alley. I really think, after
examining area and comments made by other property owners in the
area, the City would be better served to retain the alley.
Mr. McCann: You are recommending it not be vacated at this time and they go back
to Zoning Board of Appeals and get a variance?
r..
10437
Mr. Nagy: They have been successful in getting the variance. The ZBA have
granted them all their appeals. They can certainly go back to board
and say we have looked at it and have had a hearing before the
Planning Commission and notified the neighboring area and it was
concluded after studying matter, not to vacate.
New Mr. McCann: That would create no hardship to anyone?
Mr. Nagy: You're right. No hardship to anyone.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, from looking at the maps of the area, the alley is
already vacated from Inkster to Rensellor? Then we have a portion
that is not vacated plus the portion we have here this evening and
cross Antago it is not vacated and it is vacated again west of
Rensellor except for a small strip.
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: If we were going to vacate, why didn't we do that all the way down
from Rensellor to this parcel? I don't see what we are
accomplishing by vacating. You might as well leave it the way it is
and let the people have access. I don't think it is going to
accomplish what the Zoning Board wants.
Clarence Charest, 14600 Farmington Road: I like the comments that I have heard.
It is very rare that I appear before this board and they have the
same ideas I have. I would like to bring up one thing to your
attention. Grand River does not show that the center median is a
boulevard there and that is primarily the problem the doctors have.
On Antago going north there is an access to the westbound traffic on
r., Grand River with an island they can cut through. Without the alley
they have to go on Rensellor and then east. There is a substantial
difference. I think your records would show some years ago the
previous owner tried to vacate the alley and it was denied at that
time. We do use it and it has been used by them for 33 years and
they would like to continue to use it.
Mr. Morrow: To go along with what I hear here I have been convinced that as long
as the public is served by this alley, we should not vacate it. We
vacate them when there is no longer a need by the public. I am
convinced the public would still require use of the alley for
ingress and egress. I support not vacating.
Ron Mathis, President of Ever-Seven Sports, 27531 Grand River: I don't want to
break the tide. We are also opposed to vacation of the alley.
Number one we get along very well with the doctors next door, we
cooperate with each other and we use each others parking lots. On
the same token that alley is used by people who use our building to
exit our building to go on to either Antago or Rensellor. We were
here for the same thing three or four years ago. I am just here to
express our opposition to this vacating.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-3-6 closed.
10438
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-216-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
22, 1988 on Petition 88-9-3-6 by Anthony Vettraino of Steve Petix
Beverly Hills to vacate a portion of a 20 foot wide public alley located
�► south of Grand River Avenue between Antago and Rensellor in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-3-6 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) The subject alley is needed for public access to the several
abutting properties.
2) Vacating the subject alley would not guarantee unobstructed public
use of the right-of-way.
3) Public right-of-way should be vacated only when it can be
demonstrated that it is no longer needed to serve public purposes.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-10-3-10
by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of right-of-way on
Norfolk between Mayfield and Hubbard in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3.
o..
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 the proposal. We also have a letter in
our file from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to the
proposal provided easements are reserved the full width of the
existing Right-of-Way to protect their existing equipment.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-10-3-10 closed.
On a motion duly made Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-217-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
22, 1988 on Petition 88-10-3-10 by the City Planning Commission to
vacate a portion of right-of-way on Norfolk between Mayfield and Hubbard
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-10-3-10 be
approved subject to the retention of a full width easement to protect
public utilities, for the following reasons:
1) The subject right-of-way is not needed for public access purposes.
Now
2) The subject right-of-way can best be utilized for private
development purposes.
10439
3) No City department or public utility has objected to the proposed
vacating provided a full width easement is retained.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-10-3-11
by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of Schoolcraft Road
between Eckles and I-96 in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from Detroit Edison stating they have
no objection to the proposal provided easements are reserved the
full width of the existing road to protect our existing equipment.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-10-3-11 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-218-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
22, 1988 on Petition 88-10-3-11 by the City Planning Commission to
`a. vacate a portion of Schoolcraft Road between Eckles and I-96 in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-10-3-11 be approved for
the following reasons:
1) The subject right-of-way is not needed for public roadway purposes.
2) The subject right-of-way can best be utilized in conjunction with
the development of the adjacent private property.
3) The proposed vacating will insure that the subject right-of-way area
is placed back on the City's tax rolls.
4) No City department or public utility has objected to the proposed
vacating.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
I Mr. Kluver: I would like the staff to write a letter to John DelSignore
1- regarding meeting the site plan requirements.
yr
10440
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. Tent and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#11-219-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
18, 1988 on Petition 88-9-1-25 by K. M. Phillipou and John Dalfonsi
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor
Trail, west of Wayne Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32 and the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-7, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 88-9-1-25 be denied for
the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents spot zoning in the
area which is contrary to good land use planning.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning represents an encroachment of
multiple family type zoning in a single family residential
neighborhood.
4) That there are no public utilities available to serve the subject
site.
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.
'41111. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek
NAYS: LaPine, Fandrei
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-220-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
1, 1988 on Petition 88-9-2-47 by Mt. Hope Memorial Gardens requesting
waiver use approval to erect a pole barn within a cemetery located on
the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Six Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby
continue to table Petition 88-9-2-47.
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
`.
10441
#11-221-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the
City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located
on the south side of Schoolcraft, east of Farmington Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 to RE.
AND THAT, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with
the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#11-222-88 RESOLVED that approval of the minutes of the 568th Regular Meeting and
Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on November 1, 1988
be tabled until next regular meeting.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Kluver, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
`r.. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#11-223-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
88-10-8-28 by Bob Evans Farms, Inc. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a new office building located on the south side of
Plymouth Road at Laurel Avenue in Section 33 subject to the following
conditions:
1) That Site and Landscape Plan for Bob Evans dated 11-21-88 prepared
by Bob Evans, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Plan for Bob Evans dated 11-21-88 prepared by Bob
Evans, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the new landscaping be installed on site prior to building
occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition.
4) There shall not be any more than 12 trucks on site at one time.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Fandrei
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
'vu.
10442
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
adopted, it was
#12-224-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
88-11-8-30 by Jerry Knoppow requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to an existing retail sales building located on
the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Road in
Section 33 subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 880406, Sheet 2 dated 11-18-88 by Basil George Heath,
Architect is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan 880406, Sheet 1 dated 11-18-88 by Basil George
Heath, Architect is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the landscaping shown on Sheet 2 is hereby approved with the
added condition that a sprinkler system be provided for the front
landscaped area of the building.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 569th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on November 22, 1988 was adjourned at 10:45
p.m.
vow
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
J:mes C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST:
�, •� ,
Do :ld Vyhnale.f Chairman f
jg