HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-02-28 10525
MINUTES OF THE 574th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 28, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 574th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 45 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski
Herman Kluver Raymond W. Tent James C. McCann
Jack Engebretson William LaPine Brenda Lee Fandrei
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Vyhnalek informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves
a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner
has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the
petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a
preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do
�.. not become effective until seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The
Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been
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
88-12-1-39 by John Mahn to rezone property located on the east side of
Wayne Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33
from R-1 to C-2.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. However, there are no
sewer or water main facilities under the jurisdiction of the City
available to service the subject petition area.
John Mahn, Southwestern Michigan Management Company, 15510 Farmington Road,
Petitioner: We are petitioning for this area to be rezoned C-2.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to change it to C-2 to put in a shopping center to coincide
with C-2 above it?
Mr. Mahn: Yes, that was our initial petition but after hearing the different
comments of the board they asked if the petitioner would consider
10526
removing the C-2 and request a change to a C-1 classification as a
downgrading. C-1 is not so intensified as the C-2, and I spoke to
the owner of the property and he would be willing to amend the
petition so I have the authority to do that if need be.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Has there been any thought about just keeping it R-1 and building
homes over there?
Mr. Mahn: As I indicated before, we are going to build residential housing
where the R-1 is right now and to answer your question, no.
Mr. LaPine: My question is, for what reason do you believe that we should rezone
this property? Why do you feel this should not stay R-1?
Mr. Mahn: We have an approved site plan right now for that corner and I feel,
in my own opinion, that it is good land use planning to continue
that type of zoning along the front and also to increase the R-1 to
R-2 would be good planning.
Mr. LaPine: Let me ask you this. As you well know there is a lot of C-1 and C-2
property in the City that is vacant. In my opinion, we have more
than adequate C-1 and C-2 in that area. I don't see any reason to
increase the C-1 or the C-2 in that area. I think the logical thing
is to continue the R-1 around that corner there and go in with the
residential buildings, which I think originally that corner was
intended for. Now that your client has bought that property you are
trying to get it rezoned to C-1 or C-2, whatever we decide on. From
my point of view, unless you have some overwhelming evidence that I
haven't heard this evening, I don't see any good reason to put any
�r.• more C-1 or C-2 in that area.
Mr. Tent:• Mr. Mahn, you indicated in your presentation that you were amendable
to downgrading the zoning to a C-1 classification and you indicated
you had discussed this with the board and some of the members
encouraged you to the C-1 zoning. Can you clarify that?
Mr. Vyhnalek: It was brought up by one of the commissioners if he would consider
C-1. It was just one commissioner asking and he did answer that
tonight. He said he would go to C-1.
Mr. Tent: My position is the same as Mr. LaPine's. I feel we have a lot of
commercial in the area. We have a lot of C-1 and C-2. I would like
to encourage him to pursue residential.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Mahn, if you were to be successful in getting the C-1 zoning
on this property under petition, would you then propose to change
the zoning on that corner piece from C-2 to C-1 also?
Mr. Mahn: No, our intention is to leave it at C-2 and reduce to C-1 as
declining the zoning going further south.
Mr. Engebretson: With regard to your opening up the possibility of downgrading
this to C-1, is that what you are proposing to do? Are you asking
for this to be considered as C-1?
Nom.
Mr. Mahn: Yes, we would amend the petition to C-1.
10527
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask the chairman if procedurally, do we need to
recycle this?
Mr. Vyhnalek: No, I don't believe so. We can always downgrade but we can't
upgrade. Is that correct Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Mr. Kluver: The parcel which you want to develop, are you the owner of that
particular piece of property?
Mr. Mahn: No. This is a joint arrangement. The Engineering Department made
their study and they indicated the improvements of water and sewer
are not there so we are joining forces with the people up in front
to pull in the improvements through the subdivision.
Mr. Kluver: Are you saying you have an option on the land?
Mr. Mahn: No. We don't have anything. We represent the owner of the property
in the front. We own the property in the back.
Mr. Kluver: You own the R-1?
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. Kluver: You are setting up a joint venture between the owners of the R-1,
which is you, and the owners of this proposed property in the front
which you want to rezone to C-2?
r... Mr. Mahn: It is a joint venture in only the water and sewer improvements. We
will also be the leasing agent for the commercial site.
Mr. Kluver: The owner of the property in the front, is he also part of the R-1?
Mr. Mahn: No.
Mr. LaPine: Just a clarification because I am either being mislead or I
misunderstood what we talked about at our study session. The owner
of the R-1 property also owns this one corner here that you are
trying to rezone. Is that correct?
Mr. Mahn: No.
Mr. LaPine: I was under the impression that was owned by the same person.
Mr. Mahn: Mr. Surnow owns the C-2 property.
John Cottrell, 9024 Laurel: I don't understand why we want to change any kind of
R-1 to commercial property in Livonia. We have vacant stores on
Plymouth Road that have been open on Stark Road and Plymouth. They
aren't even finished. That has been over a year. There are vacant
stores on Wayne Road. We don't need another mall or shopping
center. I can't see putting buildings up that are not going to
enhance the neighborhood. My taxes were just raised. You put a
shopping center in there, they are going to go down. You have
10528
stores on Plymouth Road that are vacant. You have restaurants all
over the place. What else are we going to bring in? Why take this
property and turn it into commercial. You have a good layout there
for a good subdivision. It would probably be bigger than the
Cherokee is, where I live. Our homes are valued somwhere around
'ft. $90,000. You are going to have 40 to 50 homes probably in that
area.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Yes they are going to be valued about $115,000.
Mr. Cottrell: This is the first time we have heard anything about R-1, this
section that is going to be developed into new homes. The people I
am here with tonight they didn't even get a notice of this hearing.
Mr. Vyhnalek: They had to be within 500 feet to get a written notice of this
hearing.
Mr. Cottrell: Like I said I can't see changing the R-1 and moving it over. It is
not fair to the residents. The man may own this R-1 property but he
has a good chance to put a lot of nice homes in there.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Mahn, do you have an intended use for your C-1?
Mr. Mahn: Yes, we are working on a major tenant right now to occupy a large
amount of the square footage area.
Mrs. Sobolewski: You do have a tenant. Can you tell us who it would be?
Mr. Mahn: It would be a company out of Monroe, Michigan called Lazy Boy
r..
Chairs.
Mrs. Sobolewski: That would be a single tenant. You would build a building just
to support that tenant?
Mr. Mahn: Right now we may have another tenant. We are in the negotation
stages of that.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I always thought that a company like Lazy Boy they always wanted a
separate building. It would be strange to see it in a strip center.
Mr. Mahn: I don't know if it is going to be a strip center affect. It might
be planned out to be two buildings to entertain that idea that you
just mentioned. I can't answer you if it is going to be one or two
buildings. Naturally, being a major tenant, he will have some clout
in regards to the type of a building he wants.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Mahn, the C-2 and the R-1, that is in place there is that the
result of the Consent Judgment by the Wayne County Circuit Court?
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Was that in one ownership at the time?
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Subsequently you had bought the R-1 portion?
10529
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Do you happen to know what the dispute was that was settled in
court?
r► Mr. Mahn: A little bit. I can tell you what I think happened. The investors
that owned the entire piece, they wanted to rezone the property to a
multi-family zoning classification and a commercial strip. The
City, I believe, wanted to have a planned community and the owner
didn't want that. Maybe H could fill you in on that.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to know what the basis was because apparently we were
not able to arrive at a decision before and it took the court to
decide the zoning and I wonder what our stance was causing us to go
to court.
Mr. Shane: I think it was back in approximately 1981 that the property owner at
that time filed a petition to rezone the entire 12 acres to R-7,
including this piece under petition, and that was the basis upon
which they went to court because the City turned down that request,
and the Consent Judgment that came out of the litigation placed the
R-1 zoning district on the property and the C-2 at the corner and
further stated that the City should approve a cluster housing
project for the R-1 portion should the developer wish to present
that so today it remains as R-1 under that judgment but obviously
nothing has happened, it is still vacant since 1981.
Mr. Morrow: I assume it was RUF prior to this.
'to. Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I want to get a clarification. When we talked the other day, it was
my understanding that the C-2 property and the property you are
asking to rezone, that the two buildings were going to be
contiguous. That you were going to have an L shaped building and I
heard tonight that now we might have a separate freestanding
building for Lazy Boy. Has that changed since the last time we
talked?
Mr. Mahn: No. As Don mentioned, Lazy Boy likes to have a freestanding
building and if they became a major tenant there, then again we will
have to grant their wish and that would be a separation there but
then again if it isn't Lazy Boy or another major tenant, we don't
know what would come out of that but that would be in the site plan
review.
Mr. LaPine: It was my understanding that you said the proposed building would be
similar to the building you built at Stark and Plymouth Roads.
Mr. Mahn: That was our first intention but we do good work. Stark Plaza is
good work and I don't think anybody here would dispute that. I also
would say at this point to the resident in attendance here that I
too am a resident of Livonia and a commercial development does bring
in taxes more than residential housing and if development isn't in
this town, your residential taxes will go up.
10530
Mr. Tent: A question to Mr. Shane. This Lazy Boy operation, could they be
contained in the C-1 zoning?
Mr. Shane: Yes it could.
"gm. Mr. Tent:• Mr. Mahn, you made a statement about commercial bringing in taxes,
empty commercial will not bring in taxes and this is what my concern
is. I look around the City and I see so much strip commercial
around the City and I see so many shopping centers that are looking
for tenants and, of course, if they are vacant we have a problem.
Getting back to this, I missed the study session on this but I would
like to see out in that area a cul-de-sac and a high class
development of residential homes.
Mr. Mahn: In regards to tenants for shopping centers. The Stark Plaza
Shopping Center, the only negativeness that we had with tenants
there, was with an old building in front and we had a hard time
convincing a particular business to be moved into the center. That
is why Stark Plaza today is only 70% leased. We have a tremendous
amount of tenants that want to occupy a commercial building. That
was the only reason why we are at 70% now. The development of this
property commercial wise, they would not invest that kind of money
if they thought they could not lease the property.
Mr. Tent: What I am saying here now, we have so much commercial property. At
Levan and Five Mile, there is a very big building there. We have
Seven Mile Mall where there are vacant commercial buildings and
there is nobody flocking to get into those particular buildings, so
my contention is we have a problem with oversaturation of commercial
and strip commercial shopping centers.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-12-1-39 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#2-31-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989 on Petition 88-12-1-39 by John Mahn to rezone property located
on the east side of Wayne Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 33 from R-1 to C-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
88-12-1-39 be denied for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning would promote strip commercial
development in the area.
2) There is no need for additional commercial facilities to service
this area of the city.
3) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to good planning practice
which seeks to consolidate rather then spread out commercial
development along mile roads.
4) The subject property can be readily be development for single family
residential under its current zoning.
10531
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
New
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine,
Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-1-1
by Renate Goettmann to rezone property located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to P.S.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. We also
have a letter in our file from four Livonia homeowners who live on
Norfolk stating they object to this proposal because it conflicts
with the present use of subject property and surrounding area; the
property along Farmington Road has grown into a very desirable place
to live not to work; the land directly north of subject property
running up Farmington to the corner of Eight Mile is already zoned
PS and Cl and any further business zoning south would be an
unnecessary intrusion into the family atmosphere; the proposed
rezoning directly conflicts with the Future Land Use Plan; it would
directly and substantially affect the value and desirability of the
existing homes adjacent to the southern border of subject property
and any rezoning of this property now, after so many citizens have
gone to such great emotional and economic lengths to build a family
atmosphere, is clearly unreasonable. They feel the harmony of this
area must be maintained and the petition should be rejected. This
letter was signed by Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Parent, Mr. and Mrs.
Perry Cutlip, Mr. and Mrs. Anthony M. Varlisi and Mr. and Mrs. Dave
Smith.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to change from RUFA to P.S. for what reason?
Renate Goettmann, 2263 Cornell, Dearborn: To build doctors' offices basically.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How about the three lots north of you? Have you inquired about
them?
Ms. Goettmann: Yes. At the time we bought these two lots, the three others were
also for sale but I couldn't afford to buy them. At the same time
it was my understanding that all five lots would be subject to the
"ti.. same zoning change.
Mr. Vyhnalek: So you own the two lots under petition tonight?
10532
Ms. Goettmann: Correct.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you owned the lots?
Li14.y Ms. Goettmann: About six months.
Mr. Tent: Ms. Goettman, you are proposing a clinic?
Ms. Goettmann: Not necessarily. Perhaps one or two buildings with doctors'
offices.
Mr. Tent: Is this spec zoning? Do you have tenants? Do you have someone who
will occupy the building immediately after you build it?
Ms. Goettmann: I have one or two possibilities.
Mr. Tent: So this is just a speculative zoning where you are asking for a
zoning change with the intention of acquiring some tenants and then
putting up a building?
Ms. Goettman: I would put up the building first and then put the tenants in there.
Mr. Morrow: Ms. Goettman, looking at the map, apparently you see something in
that area that we don't. If there is an area that is well served
with professional service, it would be this area. What do you see
there that I don't see?
Ms. Goettman: I see enough of a demand to add more to it. Since there is some
offices there already, I thought it would blend in with what is
there.
Mr. Morrow: Obviously you must have because you have already purchased the
property. You must have also observed to the south of that property
the fairly substantial residential neighborhood. You should have
known that to increase the professional service zoning close to a
neighborhood, it might not be the easiest thing to do because quite
often we will use one area professional service as a downstep to
forming a barrier to further intrusion of either commercial or
professional service. Also, as we go further south you will see
another large parcel of RUFA. Using that type of thinking of yours,
we could very well consider professional service in that area. I
guess what I am saying is that looking at that site, it is well
served by professional service in close proximity to homes. There
are a large number of RUFA subdivisions that are in Livonia that, as
one commissioner, I just cannot follow your type of thinking to
consider putting professional service in that area.
Mr. LaPine: If all three of these parcels were combined into one parcel, is it
conceivable that a small subdivision could be built on there?
Mr. Shane: You mean all five parcels?
Mr. LaPine: Yes.
L'
10533
Mr. Shane: It is possible. Obviously the smaller piece of property, the more
difficult it is to put in a single family residential subdivision
from an economic standpoint.
`, Mr. LaPine: I realize the two parcels she owns, that wouldn't be conceivable but
the five parcels together with a cul-de-sac in there, there is a
possibility you could put a small subdivision in there?
Mr. Shane: It is possible.
Mrs. Fandrei: One of my concerns is that just a mile and a half south on
Farmington Road we had, just recently, a petition to rezone to a
professional service zoning classification and that was a medical
building, because the owner was having difficulty leasing it out to
medical. It was a new building and was quite nice. You are not
that far and as we did mention we do have quite a bit of
professional service in the area. It is a concern.
Mr. McCann: I am still not clear. The three pieces of property directly to the
north, that we have a petition coming in on, you are not related to
that?
Ms. Goettman: I do not own them.
Mr. McCann: I see. You have two small pieces of property. You would want to
build separately on those two pieces.
Ms. Goettman: Correct. Whoever purchased the other three is separate. I know
nothing about that.
Nrow Mr. McCann: You didn't buy this on an option of any type?
Ms. Goettman: No.
Mr. McCann: I am afraid I would have to concur with my fellow commissioners, I
see a problem with butting so close and I think we recently changed
the P.S. above this property to general office because they had
difficult times renting to medical.
Ms. Goettman: What I had in mind was building some very luxurious, spacious,
rather nice offices that could be used with small laboratories and
for secretary's and doctor's offices. I have more of a luxury type
of facility in mind.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you ever built in Livonia before?
Ms. Goettman: No.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have any examples in surrounding communities where you have
built?
Ms. Goettman: No.
Mr. Kluver: Obviously the point that we are confronted with here is the best use
of the land and the benefit to the City. Is P.S. the best use of
the land? We appreciate your interest in what you want to build but
10534
does P.S. serve the need for that particular area? Is that the best
use for that parcel? I too have a great question mark in my mind
when I see the amount of P.S. that is in there, but the issue is if
that is the best use of the land and I have a large question in my
mind whether P.S. would best serve that area.
Mr. Tent: Are you a developer? Have you ever built any building or is this
something that you thought about and you thought this would be a
good office complex?
Ms. Goettmann: I am an associate with a couple of other people. If it is rezoned,
I have some contacts that I have been able to make.
Mr. Tent: But you have no experience with this type of development?
Ms. Goettmann: I have done something similar to this in the Dearborn area on
Oakwood Blvd.
Bob Morrison, 20080 Myron: I am concerned because if they start rezoning this
property here, they are going to ask for rezoning of that property
there (he pointed adjoining property out on map) plus the fact that
there is a house on Farmington Road, that is about 50 years old, and
I called the real estate agent and they want $82,500 for a house
that is worth $40,000 and he kept on alluding to the fact that there
would probably be a change in the zoning. A zoning change as
proposed would open up the area for commercial property. I know you
can't control that. I am concerned because when I moved in, I
called the City and they said that urban would probably be continued
on but they couldn't guarantee it and I understand that. One of our
neighbors called the City and they said if it wasn't zoned P.S. , it
,— could possibly be zoned for multiple dwelling and we are very
concerned on multiple because if you start making that multiple
dwelling with two and three story buildings, then we really would
get upset.
Mr. Vyhnalek: At one time R-7 was supposed to go right over to and include the
subject area. .
Mr. Morrison: If they start bringing them out to Farmington Road, then I would say
that maybe a one story building would be better than two story
apartments.
Larry Parent, 33600 Norfolk: In addition to the letter, there was one issue that
wasn't raised in the letter and that is on those areas that are
currently zoned public service and commercial buildings, if you were
to take a sample of the areas where the pink and red are located
(referring to map) in each and every single case they have a "For
Lease" sign in each and every building where there have been
vacancies for many months and they have been unable to sell them.
Carolyn Kolankowski: I am with Real Estate One. I sold this property. You had
mentioned maybe this could go residential but in that particular
area, you can't sell residential property when it is surrounded by
all these professional offices. Right now, the homes on this
property are not very desirable. I don't think it helps much with
Livonia's image. The sellers will not put any more money into those
homes so if you leave it as is and deny this petition, you are stuck
10535
with this property that is delapidated. The other three parcels
will be coming up eventually so you are talking about five parcels.
They said we should cut this zoning off but this is in the middle of
the block. Why cut off in the middle? I am not living there. I
sold the property and the other parcel is also going to be coming
up. There is no possibility of that property going for residential
for a subdivision because it is not situated where somebody would
want to buy a home.
Mr. Engebretson: I am concerned about your remarks that you made earlier that
could be applied to the people that have houses there now. You
refer to the fact that it would be hard to develop a subdivision in
there because it is surrounded by commercial and P.S. zoning. Now
applying that logic to the people that already own homes on Norfolk,
aren't they going to be subject to the same problems?
Ms. Kolankowski: They do have the apartments in back. Actually I had talked to
two of the sellers. They do not like the site. The homes are not
the type of homes you would want in Livonia and the people who own
this property will not fix it up because they can't see any future.
Mr. Engebretson: I just want to make the point that I think the comments are well
intended and I understand your point but I think we have to be
equally concerned about the seven or eight homes on Norfolk that
will have precisely the same problem that you find exist for those
five homes. I think we are just making a bad problem worse if we
were to grant this rezoning.
Ms. Kolankowski: You made a remark let's do what is good for Livonia. Is it good
for Livonia to have those four homes on Farmington Road? I don't
r.. think it is good for Livonia to have those sitting there looking the
way they do look. They are really a sore spot. Everything else
around here is quite nice. The sellers will not put any more money
into them. I don't believe it would be in your interest to leave
those homes as they are.
Mr. Tent: You made a comment earlier that apparently you weren't listening to
some of the remarks that were made. You said this was an ideal
location for this professional service zoning and you would rather
see a professional service building, which I am sure you have an
interest in, as opposed to vacant land. Actually, the comments that
were made is the professional zoned buildings that we have in the
area, so many are vacant. What is good for Livonia is not vacant
buildings. We have to determine what is the proper zoning for this
location and we feel that P.S. , at least I do, is probably not the
proper zoning for this area and that is what we are talking about
now. We are concerned about Livonia. We are going to put the best
that we can find in here but we don't want to compound the problem.
Ms. Kolankowski: What else would that be rezoned for?
Mr. Tent: Let's wait and see. Why must we go ahead and fill that vacant piece
of land with something that is speculative? This is a speculative
zoning proposal that is before us now. It is not firm. There are
no drawings, no potential customers. It is just a speculative piece
'411Iwr of zoning. We want something firm.
10536
Ms. Kolankowski: What if this person had someone?
Mr. Morrow: Our concern is not the viability of the project, our concern is
zoning of the property and we hear these arguments all the time.
There is a place up on Six Mile and Farmington, not too far away,
`ar that we were told by the real estate people and developers that
property would be nothing more than commercial, that we had to zone
it commercial. Today on that site we have one of the nicest
subdivisions in Livonia. We will take our chances and we do what is
best tonight for the City.
Mr. Kluver: Essentially I support all my colleagues but possibly a comment to
the petitioner that when looking at this type of investment and
looking to make this type of development many times a real estate
proposal put together with the investor is conditioned on zoning as
opposed to walking in and indicating you want the zoning as a
condition of the purchase price and the purchase of the land is
conditioned on the zoning of the parcel.
George Haratsaris, 33448 Norfolk: I am not going to stand in front of you and
suggest I am very positive for the proposal but I have a particular
concern. You are dealing with a very appreciating piece of property
there. Not to approve this, in effect, puts this piece of property
in limbo. You are deferring a decision on it. That decision, in my
viewpoint, could be detrimental to us homeowners because we believe
you will probably, sometime in the future, extend the R-7 zoning,
which is something that I would personally object to. The
alternatives, if we do object to the R-7 zoning, are really P.S. or
residential. Realistically, residential is not going to go in
there. Even with 80 foot minimums, with the five parcels, you would
not get more than ten homes. Basically, I am asking for
consideration of this proposal. You say it is a speculative, but it
is my understanding there was a proposal for what the building would
look like.
Mr. Vyhnalek: No. This is strictly zoning. Site plan comes later.
Mr. Haratsaris: Personally my feeling is we do need the development. The property
is too valuable. I personally feel you are deferring a decision and
my argument is I do not wish to see R-7 back there.
Mr. McCann: You live in the second house. Do you have an interest in either of
the properties directly behind you?
Mr. Haratsaris: None at all.
Mr. McCann: Your neighbors seemed concerned that an office park is not
appropriate. You feel that the property as it is, cannot stand the
way it is?
Mr. Haratsaris: Correct.
Mr. McCann: You would rather see P.S.
Mr. Haratsaris: Yes, given a choice between those two evils.
10537
Mr. McCann: Why do you see only ten houses?
Mr. Shane: With five acres at 2 1/2 units per acre, he is pretty close.
Mr. McCann: It is your position at this time that we go ahead and rezone the
Nay property?
Mr. Haratsaris: Correct.
Mr. Tent: You are talking about the whole area Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane: I was talking about the whole package.
Ms. Goettmann: It was my understanding there was a provisional plan on file.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We can't look at them until after the zoning.
Ms. Goettmann: You are speaking about putting a subdivision in there that
presupposes that I sell my property or the other person sells his.
I only own the two lots.
Mr. LaPine: Let me say that if we were going to go P.S. , in my opinion, the only
way that whole parcel could be developed, the two property owners
would have to get together and develop it all as one development. I
am not in favor, if they are going P.S. , to have a couple of
buildings on her two lots and then the other one have two buildings.
To me it is going to have to be one big parcel developed jointly in
some type of arrangement and I am not thoroughly convinced that we
can't take that property and put in fourteen homes. As long as I am
a member of this Commission, I will never vote for rezoning that to
,ow. R-7. I don't like the R-7 up there to begin with but that was one
of those situations where it was a court case in which the developer
won his case to have the R-7 there. I am not thoroughly convinced,
we have a number of small subdivisions in this City where there are
14, 18, 12 homes built on it and I don't think it is unfeasible. I
am not thoroughly convinced one way or another.
Tony Varlesi, 33676 Norfolk: My property borders where the rezoning is going to
end. I agree that we should do what is best for the City of
Livonia. What I disagree on is taking property and just because it
is empty, put buildings on it, which in the immediate area you can
see, we have buildings that are vacant. I believe that it is
already saturated with professional service type buildings and this
is an overkill so I just disagree with adding more professional
service.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-1-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#2-32-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989 on Petition 89-1-1-1 by Renate Goettmann to rezone property
located on the west side of Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and
Norfolk Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to P.S. , the
v�.
10538
City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 89-1-1-1 until
the study meeting of March 21, 1989 when the petition for the north
3 lots, Petition 89-1-1-3, will be heard.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine,
Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. LaPine: I would recommend that the petitioner be here at that study session
so that you can meet the other property owner and maybe whatever we
do, at least from my point of view, has to be done jointly and you
can meet them and talk to them and maybe you can work something out
between you.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-1-2
by Frank Jonna for Pentagon Properties to rezone property located on the
east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from M-1 to P.O.I. and C-2.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal.
Now
Mr. Vyhnalek: I know you have Chestnut Hills property to the north of this. Now
you are coming down and thinking about a shopping center on this
property. Do you own that land at this time?
Frank Jonna, 30555 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills: Pentagon Properties,
which is a partnership in which we are involved as managing
Partners. Yes.
Jack Engebretson: Are we going to be hearing what Mr. Jonna has in mind here
before we ask questions or should we ask questions based on what we
discussed at the study meeting.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I would like to have him bring out his drawings and go over them.
Mr. Kluver: Mr. Chairman, why don't we have the petitioner make his presentation
with the supporting data to support why he wants to change the
zoning?
Mr. Jonna: (He presented drawing) The Chestnut Hills development is
approximately 42 acres and in that we proposed to build a hotel, a
nine-story office and a twelve-story office and also have incorpo-
rated an area to house three restaurants. That was the original
component of our development. We had site plan approval and we have
had to now modify as a result of negotiations with D.N.R. We
`'� eliminated a portion of the site that D.N.R. characterized as
10539
wetland. This property that we now call Pentagon Properties
consists of three parcels, Parcel C, Parcel D and Parcel E. Parcel
E is the parcel we are requesting rezoning. What we have on the
plan is a very preliminary schematic which indicates a potential for
a retail development that would be of a strip outdoor type nature.
Now. We do not propose to have any freestanding structures on the corner
at this time. We are basically looking at a strip center that would
complement the rest of the development. We have chosen to integrate
an office development into this to provide a little diversity and
take advantage of the nice view and also to benefit from the parking
between the theater and office development. This would require no
waiver of parking. It would be based on meeting all the parking
ordinances although it has been our experience that a mixed use will
not require as much parking as each component freestanding. In
assessing the site one of the primary items that drove us this way
was interest we had in this site and spinning off a piece of that
for commercial development. We have resisted a number of different
retail businesses, fast food type of places that were interested in
being in this location and have indicated we have no interest in
changing. We feel the existing traffic on Haggerty Road and the
fact there is no commercial on Haggerty Road from Eight Mile Road to
M-14, that this project would serve a need and it would also satisfy
the traffic that is there and allow that traffic to take advantage
of this retail location.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are saying since there is no commercial on Haggerty Road, you
feel there should be some?
Mr. Jonna: I feel there is a tremendous amount of development along Haggerty
Road and we would hope to satisfy what the need is in that area with
a product that we could successfully manage. There is no retail
development that is west of 275 anywhere in that area. When we
looked at the diversity of this 92 acres, we felt it was essential
to have various types of products.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the square foot proposed for this shopping center?
Mr. Jonna: 140,000 square feet of commercial and an eight screen movie theater
and office building that could go up to six stories.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have any use or potential use for this parcel at the end of
Chestnut Hills?
Mr. Jonna: We view Parcel C as a possible extension of Chestnut Hills. We
would like to integrate that into the development. We would like to
feel we could develop this in the same nature as the Chestnut Hills
for high-rise offices.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, has that zoning been changed on that?
Mr. Shane: No, it is still M-1.
Mr. Jonna: We are in negotation with a user that has a need for industrial
property that would involve office and high tech in this M-1 area.
Now.
10540
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Jonna, the proposed retail unit, you said 140,000 square feet?
Mr. Jonna: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: What were you considering for that retail area?
Mr. Jonna: We have two ways we could go with it. One would be a supermarket,
drug store, and related type service retail. Another option would
be the destination type of retailer that would draw from a larger
radius than a convenience center would draw from.
Mr. LaPine: One of the problems I have with commercial there, is the traffic.
There is a traffic problem there with the high rise office buildings
when the people come to work at 9:00 in the morning and their cars
are parked there basically all day but when it comes to commercial
development, you are going to have traffic coming and going all day.
The second problem I have, where are you drawing the people from who
are going to actually shop there? There is no residential that
close to you. Then you have the theater that you mentioned at our
prehearing. I understand with the theater and the office you would
have parking that would be used jointly because the office would be
closed at 6:00 or 7:00 and the theater would be open at
approximately that time so they would use the parking that would
normally be used for the office. Is that correct?
Mr. Jonna: The current site plan we looked at did not make any adjustment in
the parking requirements so we feel that is a benefit, but we have
made no reductions in parking to have the reciprocal parking between
the two uses.
Sur Mr. LaPine: Could you tell me where you feel the draw is going to be for the
commercial?
Mr. Jonna: Let me answer the traffic question first. With respect to the
traffic, we have done traffic studies relative to the Chestnut Hills
development and one of the keys in high density office developments
is you have many people coming and going at similar times and it is
true, in retail you would have people coming at different times. In
our mind, that is a benefit. That would create diversity in the
development. That would allow to minimize the traffic. If you were
to build more twelve story offices on this site, you would have more
traffic during peak hours. The theater is a component of diversity.
It would allow for the use of this development at off-peak hours
which would, in our minds, spread the traffic out. With respect to
the market, the market conditions are a result of basically two
things. The population that we feel is the potential growth of
residential in the Seven and Eight Mile, Newburgh area, which I
understand recently has been rezoned for residential use. We feel
that there is an obvious need in areas to the west and south, which
do not have a convenient location on this side of the freeway to
shop. We feel our market in this case would be somewhere in a three
to five mile radius from this location.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Jonna, if this zoning were granted, you are talking 24 plus
Sm. acres of land. Is that correct?
10541
Mr. Jonna: I think it is 21 acres.
Mr. Tent: I really don't understand how you are going to fill it. You
indicated two types of commercial. Could you clarify that for me.
I Aft. One was a definite tenant and the other was strip commercial?
Mr. Jonna: We do not have any definite tenants but the two types of uses would
be one that involves a supermarket and drug store. The prototype
for a mega store today is a store between 58,000 and 60,000 square
feet - not quite the size of Meijers.
Mr. Tent: What type of tenant?
Mr. Jonna: We feel we have the potential to attract either the supermarket,
drugstore and convenience related tenants or the designation type of
tenant which would mean the designation type tenant would draw from
a larger radius. It would not include a supermarket, but it would
include more of a specialty type retailer. It could overlap in both
uses. Both uses can usually satisfy some sort of food service.
Both uses in many cases can usually satisfy some similar convenience
related items.
Mr. Tent: With the zoning you have now, could you go ahead with this venture?
There are many uses other than commercial. Would you say if you
don't get commercial, it would be a lost cause as far as this
particular development is concerned?
Mr. Jonna: We hope to be successful, regardless, but this is a valuable
component to the development. We have about 100 acres of land that
we are developing in the area and we feel that this is a proper
`.• percentage of diversity that we would like to see in the
development. We feel this could be successful. We have had an
interest on the part of theaters to be in that locale. We have had
interest on the part of various retailers to be in that area.
Mr. Tent: But you could live with what you have now?
Mr. Jonna: We would prefer to have what we are requesting. Could we live with
it economically? It could be a hardship. We may have to re-examine
what we have done and how to program it and what kind of density we
would get there. From a density standpoint, what we are asking for
here is less dense than at the Chestnut Hills location.
Mr. Tent: Of course, you have heard our comments about the commercial centers
within the City and we are quite concerned that we will have so many
shopping centers. That is a concern of mine. While you are
attempting to put in something that is viable and nice for the City,
I was just hoping that you could work with what you have now.
Mr. Jonna: We are sensitive to the concerns of the Planning Commission. Being
developers, obviously we would like to develop and one of the things
that comes to my mind, we like to think we are creating opportunity
for new business and sure, whenever you do some development, there
is a chance you could empty out an existing space but hopefully what
you are doing in emptying that space out is forcing that developer
'04111. to upgrade his property.
10542
Mr. Engebretson: Based on your company's reputation, there is no doubt in my mind
you would do an excellent job in developing that parcel and I am
sure it would be a success. However, I think as a City we have to
move very cautiously in the northwest quadrant of the City because
if you have been paying attention to what has been going on here in
the last couple of years, and I am sure you have because you have a
vested interest in the Chestnut Hills development, you are well
aware there is something in the order of five million square feet of
office space either coming on stream or approved and planned for the
near future. There are five or six major hotels. There is a
relatively new regional shopping center down the road from you that
really hasn't been fully developed yet and there are probably a
thousand houses coming on stream in Plymouth Township and Livonia,
but the point is it raises a serious question as to whether or not
the infra structure of the City can handle all of this development
in such a small area. In recent months we have asked some of the
developers that have been proposing these large developments to do
an impact study on the impact these developments will have on the
infra structure. We mentioned that to you briefly last time and I
am curious to know whether you have considered launching such a
study since we spoke a week ago.
Mr. Jonna: Yes we have and typically we do a good deal of in-house work. We
had a consultant involved in the Chestnut Hills location, that was
the Landown Company in Chicago, that did our original market study.
We learned a lot from that and felt that our preliminary analysis of
this site was adequate. We are certainly not opposed to considering
looking at that in greater deal, possibly through the use of a
consultant.
Mr. Engebretson: I think that is the necessary thing to do for us in order for us
to make a responsible decision as to whether or not this is proper
zoning. There is also the issue of the wetlands which was discussed
at the prehearing review and as you know, from your own experience
from the Chestnut Hills development, after you invested considerable
money on that development, you got put on hold for eighteen months
by the D.N.R developing the wetlands resolution. I am just
wondering if we are putting the cart before the horse in dealing
with the zoning issue and site plans and then to find out from the
D.N.R. that the development can't be done as proposed. Although I
do understand you are in a position, based on the work that you have
done with them recently, that you would expect it to be successful;
that is to say, the plans that you have to relocate the wetlands
would be successful and may well be right but what if you are not.
One of my concerns is your intention to develop another major
supermarket, as it seems every time a new supermarket opens up an
old one gets boarded and sits vacant. It becomes a nuisance for the
neighborhood. We have seen a number of examples of that recently
and I think it is a valid concern. The rush to put all of our
businesses and commercial shopping facilities into a very small
segment of the City has the potential of laying the rest of the City
to waste and I don't think that is fair to any of the citizens of
Livonia. I would like to summarize by saying that I think there is
a very real need to move cautiously here to deal with these issues
that have been raised and most importantly to determine that the
�"' infra structure of the City can handle this project as much for
10543
the benefit of you, the developer, as it would be for the City. So
my intent here is not to be giving you a hard time but I think these
are valid concerns and I think to view this in isolation is a
mistake. I think we have to consider your proposal in context with
everything else going on in this area, within a two mile radius,
`" which would include your property, for the benefit of all concerned,
the City and certainly your company.
*9:00 Mr. Morrow had to leave meeting.
Mr. Jonna: I would like to comment on the infra structure comment. We have
installed over a half a mile of sanitary sewer in our development to
date and have brought it to a point where it can now serve the
residential community to the east of I-275 and this site is unique
to any community that we have ever developed to have a thoroughfare
of the magniture of I-275 that services this site. To have full
interchanges a mile apart is certainly evidence to us that there
will not be a significant impact on the road system in addition to
the fact that we have already agreed with Wayne County to do
approximately $300,000 worth of road improvements in front of the
Chestnut Hills development. We would not want to get involved in a
development that would create a bottleneck. It would ultimately
fail and end up being an unsuccessful project. We feel, as you do,
that it is important to have good infra structure. Seven Mile Road
is four lanes in both directions. It is an excellent thoroughfare.
We feel the infra structure is definitely there. With respect to
the D.N.R. question, yes it is a very valid concern. It definitely
has an impact on how we develop the project but we cannot go to the
D.N.R. unless we have a firm plan. From out standpoint, it is
essential that we know exactly what we are going to ask for to make
our case for them.
Mr. Engebretson: I appreciate Mr. Jonna educating me on the D.N.R. process. I am
a rookie here and I am still learning about these things. Regarding
your comments on traffic and the opportunity with I-275 having these
consecutive interchanges, etc. and your concern that you wouldn't
want to make a major development in a situation that was going to be
overloaded with traffic, let me just share with you information that
has come to light in the past five or six weeks relative to another
major project a mile south of you. That traffic study indicates
that I-275, at certain times of the day, is going to become near
gridlock type conditions, not only I-275 but the surrounding roads
and even though the commercial property doesn't generate all this
traffic, the fact of the matter is your project is going to
certainly contribute to this and your project would certainly suffer
from the traffic conditions that are going to be present a year or
two down the road when these projects are developed. For example, I
am encouraging you, if this information interests you at all, I am
sure the Planning Department could supply you a copy of this report
which is some 55 or 60 pages long. There is a lot of enlightening
information in it, but there are scheduled to be as many as 690 cars
making a left hand turn off northbound I-275 onto westbound Six Mile
Road after having stopped at the stop sign there in a one hour
period. That is 680 cars more than presently are negotiating that
left turn, and I guess my point is, I think we are staring to reach
10544
a point where there is a serious question as to whether the roads
can handle these loads. I am not putting it on you or any
particular project but taken as a whole, I think we have a potential
for serious problems and if you are not aware of those developments,
I would encourage you to get that information from the Planning
*ft. Department because it may have an effect upon how you view the
viability of this very substantial investment that you are hoping to
undertake here.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Jonna, I have two concerns about your proposal. One would be
the theater. We have approved ten screens two miles from this
location at Laurel Park at Six Mile and Newburgh Road. I think ten
is adequate. My other concern is the commercial. At our prehearing
review we discussed the users of this commercial strip and the
senior Mr. Jonna agreed with my opinion that it would not be Livonia
users. It would not be Livonia residents, not likely on the west
side of I-275 and your contention was, at that time, it would most
likely be Northville and Novi.
Mr. Jonna: That certainly would be a part of the market.
Mrs. Fandrei: Part of my difficulty is that along the Northville corridor, we have
Meijers one mile to the north, we have an A & P and a drug store one
and a half mile to the west and another strip just beyond that which
would be the other type of user you were referring to for this
strip. Your suggestion then, as I am interpreting it, that we,
Livonia, rezone this prime property for users in Northville and Novi
and I have a little bit of difficulty with that. I would like to
suggest that we, as a Planning Commission, table this and form a
sub-committee with Northville's Planning Commissioners and get some
`► input from this as to whether they feel this would be viable for
their community.
Mr. Jonna: We are, in no way, developing a project in Livonia to service
Northville. The project we are proposing in Livonia is to satisfy a
Livonia need and, of course, that need goes across city lines. I
think it would be a mistake to assume that many Northville residents
certainly don't have the services availabe to them that are
available in Livonia. I don't think you would be in any way
discouraging their access to Livonia by not having a development
here. Your concern should be for the best use of the subject
property and the community and if it is a successful development and
serves the Livonia community, then it should be what you consider.
What makes it successful is if residents, not only from Livonia but
also from Novi or Northville, support the center. I don't
understand how people from Novi or Northville should have an impact
on it because what you would be doing is reducing the traffic that
is eminating from Livonia.
Mrs. Fandrei: I think you are misunderstanding my intention. I do feel this is
going to be servicing Northville and Novi and I would like the
opinion of their Planning Commissioners also. I would like their
input to see if this would impact their city if their users would be
using this. I am looking at the best use of the land. I do not
feel the best use is a commercial venture or the strip mall that you
'- are proposing and I am concerned about that. I do not want to see a
development proposal that is not successful, as you don't. So
10545
before we go that far I would like to study it further and get their
opinions. They know their community. There are not many residences
along Seven Mile for almost two miles. There are not many
residences between Haggerty Road, two miles west into Northville.
There aren't any in Livonia until we go south. We have very few
'�► residences that I see are going to be using this strip. So as a
concern for yourself, for your proposal and for the City, for the
best use of the land, I would like to study this a little bit
further.
Mr. Jonna: I find it hard to understand why it would be beneficial to consult
Northville in this case. In the Chestnut Hills development, the
other work we have done along there, Northville is also our
neighbor. We certainly don't have a problem working with them but
its hard for me to understand why it is their concern. We don't
want to do something in one community that would damage or harm
another community. We feel this should be looked on where it stands
and what it does and if across the street they develop a shopping
center or major mall, that really should not be a factor in what we
do.
Mrs. Fandrei: I disagree. I feel we have to consider our neighbors. I don't
think we do enough.
Mr. Kluver: Several issues have been brought to the table. We discussed traffic
and much of the conversation seems to be conjecture because there
is statistical data that should support any type of an issue of this
magnitude. I am looking at a major corridor, which has continually
had major development along it. We are looking at projects that are
going to take many years to finish. You are looking to changing
`�► your zoning from M-1 to C-2. C-2 is probably one of the most
intense uses that we have in the City. You are looking again from
M-1 to P.O.I. We are looking at a six story office building. We
have, on the drawing boards, approximately six million square feet
in the City of Livonia. We have currently buildings that are up and
vacant. I look at what is the best use of the land? What is wrong
with M-1? What is wrong with Research and Engineering? What is
wrong with the continued development of the area in the M-1 vain?
That is something that can be supported. We look at services coming
into the area, major services, water and sanitary. These have a
tremendous impact. A project of this size has to be integrated with
the balance of what is being developed in the corridor. What we do,
we seem to take these and we isolate them as an individual entity.
What happens if Seven Mile and Haggerty Road has a impact on Six
Mile and Haggerty Road as it does have an impact on Seven Mile and
Newburgh Road. As we travel along that corridor that impact begins
to grow. There is an accumulative development of problems that are
going to come out of this. We are talking for about 25 or 45
minutes about major problems that are going to impact this area for
25 years. I certainly think there is more information that has to
be brought to the table. We need more detail, more statistical
data, the logistics put into play. I want to see newer detailed
information and it has to be impacted with the balance of the
corridor.
`rr.
10546
Mr. Jonna: We are certainly prepared to pursue more detailed information, I
just would like to note the C-2 is existing on the site. We didn't
bring that in.
x i
Mr. Kluwer: I know what is there already. I'm talking about the balance to be
"41ft, changed.
Mr. Jonna: What is there, if it were developed that is just the corner there,
it would really not be the type of product we would be happy with.
It could very well be a gas station or a fast food restaurant. The
request we made, what we hope we are asking for is something that
the City and ourselves would be proud of. We don't want to develop
a product that is not successful. We agree with you that there is a
lot of office space available in the area. That is one reason that
has led us to this pursuit. We have the potential of putting up
750,000 square feet of office space so we realize there is a need
and we feel this project would add diversity to this location so we
don't have one kind of product and one kind of user going into that
area.
Mr. Kluver: I appreciate that. Maybe the C-2 at the corner is not the best
zoning either. Possibly accelerated development is not the best way
to go. We are looking at something that will impact the area for
the next fifty years. It will be beyond my lifetime. These types
of impacts and the change along that corridor, they are going to
have an impact beyond that corridor and the quality of life is
affected. Maybe M-1 and R.E. , maybe they present a better interest
and a better quality of life for the City. They will provide jobs.
They will provide very attractive buildings but they won't generate
some of the other things we are talking about. We should present
these things and look at them objectively.
Mrs. Fandrei: I would like to offer a tabling resolution until further information
becomes available about the traffic, a better idea of what we are
going to be looking at for a total number, and further whether the
C-2 is going to be feasible.
Mr. Kluver: I would support that and I would like to add some additional data to
be developed by our own professional staff and that is to take the
entire corridor from the Eight Mile/I-275 entrance and exit to the
Six Mile/I-275 entrance and exit and bordering Haggerty Road through
Newburgh to indicate the amount of current zoning, the type of
development that is there and the supporting data which goes with
that such as the traffic movement, impact on various services, the
new improved water supply, and also within that area the offices,
this type of development, the present number on the books, which is
proposed and approved and total square footage and from that the
total occupancy rate of the office and commercial activities. I
will be happy to detail that in a letter.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-1-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
10547
#2-33-89 RESOLVED, that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
February 28, 1989 on Petition 89-1-1-2 by Frank Jonna for Pentagon
Properties to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6
from M-1 to P.O.I. and C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 89-1-1-2 until further information becomes available.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Fandrei
NAYS: McCann, LaPine, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-2-1
by Kirk's Kwik Stop, Inc. for waiver use approval to utilize a SDD
license in connection with an existing party store located on the
southeast corner of Ann Arbor Road and Knolson Avenue in the southwest
1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, could you bring me up to date concerning the
availability of licenses. Our notes indicate we may not have
v., licenses left.
Mr. Shane: The information we have, that you have in the notes, is that at the
present time there is perhaps only one or two SDD licenses, at the
very most, available in the community. Although, I should point
out, that this particular location did have an SDD license although
they have to ask for a new one because the SDD license that was
there has been moved to another location. At best there may be one,
possibly two.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, I believe I heard you say the SDD license that had
been used at this location has moved. Did you really mean to say
that it is proposed to be moved?
Mr. Shane: Right. I really more accurately should say that the former owner of
the site retained the SDD license and is proposing to move it.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, an SDD license, when it is issued, it is issued to an
individual and he owns it. Is that correct?
Mr. Shane: Yes, it is issued to an individual.
Mr. LaPine: This particular license that was at this location, Mr. George owned
it, and he is apparently going to sell it to Great Scott for their
location at Eight Mile Road and Farmington. If that is denied, and
the Council upholds our recommendation that it be denied, then he
`u0, still retains that license but he could sell it to anybody else he
wants?
10548
Mr. Shane: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: But if you apply for a new license, there is no charge?
Mr. Shane: I don't know what the charges are in that respect.
Mrs. Sobolewski: If he was approved tonight, he could apply for an SDD and just get
in line and wait with the rest of them?
Mr. Shane: I assume he has already applied.
Michael Vorgitch, 9394 Knolson, Petitioner: The petition here is in regards to an
SDD to be added to an existing SDM license. The previous tenant
that had the SDD license put it in escrow and my understanding was
he told me he had sent out letters to several SDM licensees, and he
put the license up for sale for $104,000 and there were a few
Council people who were quite upset. They felt that there was a
business being operated on the strength of owning a license.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Since you are in the business, what would it cost if you applied and
had to pay the state?
Mr. Vorgitch: About $120 or $130.
Mr. McCann: Are you the original owner of the property here?
Mr. Vorgitch: Yes.
Mr. McCann: You were subleasing this out to a party store? Is that correct?
�..► Mr. Vorgitch: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: The party store owned the liquor license? Is that correct?
Mr. Vorgitch: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: Did his lease end?
Mr. Vorgitch: Yes it did and he did not re-lease the property so I opened up the
store with an SDM license.
Mr. McCann: You are running it yourself?
Mr. Vorgitch: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: Did you try to negotiate with him for the license?
Mr. Vorgitch: Yes, but he was way out of line. The SDD licenses are selling for
around $30,000 to $35,000 in Livonia. He sent letters out to all
the SDM's in Livonia stating that he had a license for sale for
$104,000.
Mr. McCann: Do you know if he sold that license?
Mr. Vorgitch: Not yet. He can keep it in escrow and at the end of the second year
if he doesn't dispose of the license, it reverts back to the City.
10549
Mr. McCann: Is this creating a hardship on you trying to run the store without
an SDD license?
Mr. Vorgitch: There was a liquor license there for years and people are still
coming in wanting to buy liquor and there is no liquor store in the
`' immediate vicinity and I think there is a use for it and it would be
advantageous to me if I did have an SDD license.
Mr. Kluver: Basically you answered my questions. I wondered about the
transition of how licenses move and if Mr. Vorgitch was the owner of
the SDM license.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I feel I really don't have any reason to think why the applicant
shouldn't get in line and try to get a license. The store had it
before. There doesn't seem to be any objections from the neighbors.
He had it before. I see no reason why we shouldn't let him go ahead
and apply.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-2-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2-34-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-1 by Kirk's Kwik Stop, Inc. for waiver use
approval to utilize a SDD license in connection with an existing party
store located on the southeast corner of Ann Arbor Road and Knolson
Avenue in the southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City council that Petition 89-1-2-1 be
N„. approved for the following reasons:
1) The proposed use is in compliance with all special and general
waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-2-3
by Alex Fedrigo requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage of
recreational vehicles and boats on property located west of Stark Road
between Glendale Avenue and the C. & 0. Railroad in the North 1/2 of
Section 28.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
*r
10550
Mr. Shane: We have a letter in our file from Lieutenant Thorne of the Traffic
Bureau of the Police Department stating the following: 1. The gate
and fence locations and design are unclear. 2. I would be more
comfortable with a 25 foot drive. 3. There is no indication that
the drives are to be paved. To protect Fairlane, the west drive
*sr should be paved or blacktopped at least 100 feet into the property.
4. The storage yards should have perimeter and interior lighting to
discourage vandalism and theft. 5. It will be very difficult to
patrol or respond to alarms in a fenced secure area. The petitioner
must understand this and take this into account when planning his
security measures. We also have a letter in our file from the
Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire, stating they have no
objections to this development. There is also a letter in our file
from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to
this proposal. Finally, we have a leter in our file from the
Inspection Department stating the following: 1. The entire storage
lot must be paved. 2. No landscaping is proposed for the site. 3.
The required fence is not indicated on the plan. 4. The required
lighting is not indicated on the plan.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Fedrigo, did you hear the comments from the Police Department,
Fire Department and Inspection?
Alex Fedrigo, 32245 Scone, Petitioner: Yes I did. They are not too bad really.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is the lot going to be paved?
Mr. Fedrigo: That is a toughie. He is talking about the whole lot?
Mr. Shane: He is talking about the storage area. The driveway into the parcel
... and then the storage area.
Mr. Fedrigo: Well certainly the driveway into the property is going to be paved.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Twenty-five feet like they suggested?
Mr. Fedrigo: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How about inside the fenced area?
Mr. Fedrigo: What I thought would be adequate would be crushed rock. This is not
a very profitable use for this land. This is an interim use. I
also own the property to the east of it and to the west of it.
Hopefully, sometime in the future I hope to put a building on this
land.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, does he have two years to pave?
Mr. Shane: The special use requirements allow the Planning Commission and the
Council discretion in that regards. You could require him to pave
immediately or you could go by the zoning ordinance in another
section, which allows him two years. At the very least, he would
have to pave it within two years.
Mr. Fedrigo: How long do you plan on having this business here?
10551
Mr. Fedrigo: Truthfully, I can't answer that. We want to put a building there.
We are going to attempt to maybe service these RV vehicles.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It seems like you would want that to be permanent with a building on
the west side to do the service. Is that correct?
Mr. Fedrigo: The building I am proposing is right on this piece of property.
This is contrary to some of the other things that appeared before
your body this evening. This is something that is needed. People
are parking RV vehicles all over the City because there is a need
for storage lots.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We understand that but we want it fenced properly. We want it paved
properly. We want it lighted for security. If we don't have those,
it's not going to be any use to the citizens of Livonia, being
ripped off in a dark area.
Mr. Fedrigo: Putting up lights is something we certainly can do. Fencing, we can
do that.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How about security. What have you done along those lines?
Mr. Fedrigo: We don't have a plan for 24 hour surveillance.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are way back in a M-1 district on a dead end road and you want
to have just a few lights and you will have these expensive RVs and
maybe some boats with a chain link fence. You should have some
security like the Police Department requested.
Mr. Fedrigo: I really didn't grasp that statement. It is going to be totally
fenced with a gate.
Mr. Tent: I was very pleased to get all those reports from the various
departments. I would suggest also that the petitioner meet with our
staff and go over the requirements and come up with a revised site
plan to encompass the things that we are looking for and then bring
this to a study session.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is so true Mr. Tent. We need a site plan to show everything
that is going to be on there. We don't know where the gate is. We
don't know where the lights are at.
Mr. Kluver: Also, Mr. Chairman, it should indicate logistically the numeber of
vehicles to be stored there with a complete logistical plan.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Do the people who park their recreational vehicles there, are you
liable for any damage? Do they park it there at their own risk?
Mr. Fedrigo: Most of these lots where you park, they require you to maintain your
own insurance. They don't pay an awful lot. It is an interim use
really.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Fedrigo, don't get the wrong idea. We think we need this type
of development in Livonia because we don't want to see them parked
10552
in the driveways of the subdivisions but as Mr. Tent, Mr. Kluver and
myself feel you have to come back with a good site plan with all
these recommendations put on there.
i
Mr. Kluver: I support your interest in what you want to do Mr. Fedrigo but my
interest is also that you have a good facility that can support the
need that you want to use it for and it does have the proper
security, fencing and lighting and that you offer this type of
protection to those people that are going to pay that very, very low
fee to store their vehicles there so we don't have a situation where
that can become a parts feeding type of situation.
Mr. LaPine: When you come in with that plan also indicate how the vehicles are
going to be parked.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Remember, we can be lenient for two years and after that Mr.
McDonald will come down like thunder and it will have to be paved.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-2-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2-35-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-3 by Alex Fedrigo requesting waiver use
approval for outdoor storage of recreational vehicles and boats on
property located west of Stark Road between Glendale Avenue and the C. &
0. Railroad in the North 1/2 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission
does hereby table Petition 89-1-2-3 until such time as a revised site
plan can be submitted in accordance with the comments made during
tonight's public hearing.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-2-4
by Blue Coral requesting waiver use approval to operate an automobile
waxing and polishing center within a multi-tenant facility located on
the west side of Farmington Road between Schoolcraft Road and the C. &
0. Railroad in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter
from the Inspection Department stating no deficiencies or problems
were found and provided that all washing/waxing is done indoors,
their office has no objections to this proposal. We have received a
letter from Brian Boughton & Associates stating they are next door
neighbors of Blue Coral Auto Reconditioning stating they are in no
way disruptive to the environment around them and have maintained
the utmost concern for their neighbors. They also state their
rr.
10553
courtesy has made it a pleasure to have them as neighbors. We have
also received a letter from Rick Chownyk of Cam-Tek stating Blue
Coral occupies the building space two doors down from him and they
make a point to ensure that they do not disturb other people in the
building around them. He states they are professional, friendly and
Nifty cordial and their work area remains clean, neat and clutter free.
Mrs. Sobolewski: By issuing him waiver use, does this give him a little more
leeway? Does it give him more room?
Mr. Shane: By issuing him waiver use it legitimizes his business. If he
continued to operate his business as he had, he would be in
violation of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Schumacher, what business do you have?
Joe Schumacher, 12615 Farmington Road, Petitioner: It is Blue Coral Auto
Reconditioning Center of Michigan and it is basically the hand
waxing and polishing of automobiles by appointment only for local
businessmen like yourselves.
Mr. Vyhnalek: No mechanical?
Mr. Schumacher: No mechanical, no body, no paint and no engine work at all.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Just wash the inside?
Mr. Schumacher: Just wash and shampoo the inside and wax.
Mr. Vyhnalek? How many cars a day?
Mr. Schumacher: Currently we are doing between six and eight in the slow time of
the year. In the peak time, in the spring, we anticipate between
ten and twelve cars.
Mr. Kluver: Everything you do is to the exterior of the car?
Mr. Schumacher: No, we also shampoo interior.
Mr. Kluver: No steam cleaning?
Mr Schumacher: Not at this point. Maybe in the future.
Mr. Kluver: Doesn't that generate a problem. Doesn't that generate a lot of
excess grease?
Mr. Schumacher: The engine cleaner we would use is cold water activated and
basically you just spray it on and then hose it down with water. If
we did venture into that we would have what they call an oil catch
basin and that is what we intend to use. We are eight months into a
two year lease and depending on what happens here tonight, that is
one of the things we are considering.
Mr. Kluver: How long have you been operating there?
10554
Mr. Schumacher: Eight months.
Mr. Tent: Those were nice letters you got. I want to compliment you for
keeping your neighbors happy. That is half the battle. If you
continue to do that, we won't have any problems.
`.
Mr. LaPine: On the point Mr. Kluver brought up. If you start steam cleaning
engines, you said you would have to have a catch for the oil?
Mr. Schumacher: I believe Mr. Shane would be able to answer that better than
myself.
Mr. LaPine: If you are able to do that, would you start changing oil there?
Mr. Schumacher: No.
Mr. LaPine: If they steam clean engines, would they have to separate the oil and
grease that comes off the engines, not drop it into the sewer lines?
Mr. Shane: I don't know that for a fact but I would imagine so. I would have
to check with the Building Department or Engineering Department.
That is a little bit out of our expertise.
Mr. Vyhnalek: He could start up this business of steam cleaning under the waiver?
Mr. Shane: I think he could as long as he doesn't do mechanical work.
Obviously, you could put some stipulations on it if you care to.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How serious are you about steam cleaning engines?
Mr. Schumacher: Obviously as a new business we would like to have all the
potential profit centers in the line of automotive cleaning that we
could have and I would hate to rule that out but if it was something
that we would have to rule out to continue operation, obviously we
would consider it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are these cars mostly new cars?
Mr. Schumacher: About 80% are two years or newer.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Those engines are half way clean anyways.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Schumacher, what are you doing in your other locations? I
didn't realize before that you had other locations. Can you
describe the nature of your business and tell us a little bit how
you are structured and how those other operations work.
Mr. Schumacher: Basically, the next location is not open currently. It will be
open April 1st in Brighton, Michigan. We have several other
locations that we are currently negotiating. The closest one would
be in Farmington. They will all operate along the same guidelines
as our reconditioning center, no engine work, no body work, etc.
Basically we are leaning towards retail executives and that is why
this location here is extremely advantageous to us because the whole
area around us is business executives. It makes it easy for us to
go pick up a car and service them quickly as opposed to driving
across town.
10555
Mr. Engebretson: Is this a proto type of a business plan that you intend to take
into other areas? This is the newer one?
Mr. Schumacher: This is the first one in the State of Michigan. We are expanding
down south. This is a test market. Being as I grew up in Livonia,
__ we are starting it here.
Mr. Engebretson: You are a franchisee of Blue Coral? This is a national chain?
Mr. Schumacher: Blue Coral is a national company. It is not a franchise.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-2-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-36-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-4 by Blue Coral requesting waiver use
approval to operate an automobile waxing and polishing center within a
multi-tenant facility located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Schoolcraft Road and the C. & 0. Railroad in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
89-1-2-4 subject to the following conditions:
1) That there shall be no overnight parking of vehicles on the site.
2) That there shall be no outdoor washing or polishing of vehicles.
3) That there shall be no mechanical work of any kind performed as part
of the operation of this facility.
4) That they will not enter into an engine steam cleaning activity
without prior approval of the City.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general
waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 16.11 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, to the maker of the motion. I understand what you are
10556
doing and it is your intention that he would have to come back
before this board or get approval from the Planning Department, the
Building Department. How do you want that?
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think the Inspection Department would have to make that approval.
If you are going to consider steaming engines, go to the Inspection
Department and get permission from them and they will rule on that.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-2-5
by Stan's Market, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM
license within an existing retail store located on the southwest corner
of Ann Arbor Road and Knolson in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
** Mr. Nagy entered meeting at this time.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objection to this proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Sir,we have a problem. There is another SDM license within 500
feet, the one we just talked about with Mr. Vorgitch, and under our
ordinance, if we approve this, it will be subject to the Council's
decision on that. The Council can waive the 500 feet. We cannot. The
ordinance says we can't have two SDM within 500 feet of each other.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Elvis, what do you plan to do with the other store?
Tom Elvis, President of Stan s Market, 38000 Ann Arbor Road: We have a potential
sale of the property to McDonalds and everything is moving in a
favorable direction.
Mr. McCann: I didn't understand. Which property is being sold to McDonalds?
Mr. Elvis: The property at 38001 Ann Arbor Road.
Mr. McCann: Is that the hamburger chain?
Mr. Elvis: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: I was under the impression that you were simply requesting to
transfer the SDM license from your existing store at Ann Arbor Road
and Ann Arbor Trail down to the newer facility on Knolson. Are you
intending to close the business on Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor
Trail?
Mr. Elvis: If the transaction to McDonalds goes through.
Mr. Engebretson: And if it doesn't, would the SDM license still move there?
Mr. Elvis: That would be another decision we would have to make. We have to
get these things in order because if the McDonald thing came
through, we would have to close the business and it would take
`, several months to transfer the SDM down the street and then the
business would be lost. That is why we are doing this now. The
McDonalds thing looks very favorable.
10557
Mr. Engebretson: I was wondering if we are doing this in the right order? Mr.
Nagy, what would happen if the request is approved to transfer the
SDM from the existing store to the new store on Knolson, and then
for whatever reasons the negotiations with the prospective purchaser
of the Ann Arbor Road, Ann Arbor Trail facility should break down.
*41., Where does that leave Stan's Market?
Mr. Nagy: What is really before the City Planning Commission tonight is a
zoning decision. It is not really a question of whether or not the
license here should be transferred. That is a separate matter and
that matter of concurring with the transfer of licenses is only
dealt with at the Council level. What the commission should make a
decision on tonight is only with respect to whether or not, from a
zoning standpoint, the subject property should or should not be used
for the SDM liquor license and thereafter there will be a lot of
time available for this petitioner to negotiate with McDonalds and
if their deal is successful, then they will know their new site will
have all the zoning approval in place for them to make the transfer
and if it should not come to pass, the worst case is that the
Planning Commission and the City Council have made a decision that
this site here, from a zoning standpoint, is suitable for a SDM
license. The license is not being transferred by your action
tonight.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If he did get a new SDM license at this place and the old one failed
and closed down, wouldn't that license revert back to the City?
Mr. Nagy: Licenses are not with the City. The City just has a right to
recommend, above all other, the award of a license. The license
stays with Stans.
rr. Mr. Tent: The question here is zoning and the petitioner is requesting a
waiver. He doesn't comply with the ordinance. He doesn't meet the
500 foot requirement so actually we have to deny it. We have an
ordinance in the City. We say it is 500 feet. If we approve it, we
are wrong. If we deny it, we are correct. Because now it will go
to the Council and the Council can make their decision whether or
not they want to waive this or not but from a zoning standpoint we
have no other alternative except to deny it because he is in
violation of the 500 foot requirement and then it passes on and then
it goes to the next legislative body and then they in turn can say
yes. We are not talking about license, we are talking about the
zoning ordinance. I would have to vote by saying this does not
comply with our ordinance and I would deny it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is true but we also have another option on that, subject to
Council approval, but you are correct, technically we should deny
it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-2-5 closed.
Mr. Tent made a motion to deny Petition 89-1-2-5. Mr. Vyhnalek declared the motion
failed for lack of a second.
10558
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and
adopted, it was
#2-37-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989 on Petition 89-1-2-5 by Stan's Market, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to utilize an SDM license within an existing retail store
located on the southwest corner of Ann Arbor Road and Knolson in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commissio does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-1-2-5 be approved subject
to the waiving of the 500' separation rule found in Section 10.03(g) of
the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards
and requirements set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That the proposed use represents the transfer of an existing SDM
license as opposed to adding a new license to the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
`...
AYES: Kluwer, McCann, Sobolewski, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Tent
ABSTAIN: Engebretson
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-2-6
by Nesbitt Partners requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C
liquor license in conjunction with the Embassy Suites Hotel proposed to
be located on the east side of the 1-275 Expressway between Seven and
Eight Mile Roads in the South 1/2 of Section 6.
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.
Patricia Smith, of the law firm of Brashear, Tangora & Spence, 32900 Five Mile: I
am here for Mr. Tangora. He is out of town. He represents the
Embassy Suites Hotel. I believe you have had discussions with him
on this. It is a petition for a Class C liquor license.
10559
Mr. Vyhnalek: Yes, at the prehearing we did discuss this with individuals from the
Embassy Suites and it is a necessity for a hotel of that magnitude.
Nor Vyhnalek,
was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-2-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, and seconded by Mr. Engebretson it was
#2-38-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 89-1-2-6 by Nesbitt Partners requesting waiver use
approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in conjunction with the
Embassy Suites Hotel proposed to be located on the east side of the
I-275 Expressway between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the South 1/2 of
Section 6, be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in full compliance with all special and
general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section
25.05 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That the proposed use is a logical adjunct to the operation of the
hotel.
�..
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine,
Vyhnalek
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Fandrei, Morrow
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-3-1
by Truman A. Strong, D.D.S. to vacate a portion of a private easement
for public utilities on property located on the southeast corner of
Middlebelt Road and Grandon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36.
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 Dr. Truman Strong asking that the
City vacate the northern three feet of a six foot easement for the
reason his building has been constructed infringing on this
10560
easement. At the time of construction, the builder was not aware of
the easement. He states he needs the City's approval so he may
obtain a clear title to the building and the property. He also
b' . apoligizes for not being at this meeting as he had a previous
t_ commitment made one year ago. We also have a letter in our file
`,, from the Engineering Department stating that there are no City
maintained utilities within the easement area to be vacated and
therefore their office has no objections to this proposal. We also
have a letter in our file from Detroit Edison stating they object to
the proposed easement vacation. They state that cutting the width
of this easement in half will severely diminish their ability to
maintain their equipment and provide adequate service to present and
future customers in the area. They further state that since an
alternate six foot easement has not been addressed for their
existing facilities, they request that the vacation of the subject
easement be postponed until the customer has had an opportunity to
arrange for the relocation of said Detroit Edison equipment. We
also have a letter in our file from our department to Dr. Strong
indicating that Detroit Edison had objected and the letter from
Detroit Edison was sent to his office and we also attempted to call
him on numerous occasions but now his letter explains why we
couldn't get hold of him because he was out of town. His office
does have a copy of Detroit Edison's letter.
Mr. LaPine: We have a building that is already up. It is sitting on the
easement. The petitioner didn't know it was there apparently.
Consumers Powers said they had no problem with it. The only one we
have a problem with is Detroit Edison with overhead lines. How much
easement is left if we grant this?
Mr. Nagy: It is a six foot easement.
`w
Mr. LaPine: Which means there is only three feet left, which means no trucks can
get back there. How does he resolve his problem? You can't give
him the six feet because there is only three feet left. Even if he
gets together with Edison, what can he do?
Mr. Nagy: I am only spectulating. I don't know the exact answer. I think the
Doctor is of the opinion that the three feet is adequate for the
Edison Company to maintain their utilities. I don't think he is
aware that Edison is now saying that it is not. That they need
more.
Mr. LaPine: Let's assume that we approved it. Can Edison stop it in any way?
Mr. Nagy: I think Edison could force the Doctor to remove their equipment. I
think what they are suggesting is there may be another way we can
relocate our poles out of that area but it will be at the Doctor's
expense.
Oscar Lundy, 27540 Michigan Avenue, Inkster: I represent the contractor. The
building was built as per plans and specifications as to size and
the way it sits. It sits exactly the way it was approved by the
City, the Planning Commission and the Building Department.
10561
Mr. Vyhnalek: That means we also didn't know know that easement was there?
Now.. Mr. Nagy: It means it is not a public easement where the City shares the
underground sanitary sewer or water. It is a private easement for
the utility companies so therfore we were apparently not aware of
%ay that otherwise we would not have issued the building permit. It is
going to be a matter between the property owner and Edison and
Consumers Power.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, I see it as a point right now where the Detroit Edison is
looking, by objecting to the easement, to get the Doctor to pay for
moving the poles. However, since basically the City, as well as the
developer, missed it, if we go ahead and approve the vacation of
this easement, we leave it to Detroit Edison. If they want to
remove the poles at their own expense, then they are stuck doing it.
If they want to live with the three foot easement, they are stuck
with that too. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Nagy: I am not very well qualified to answer that. It sounds like a legal
question to me.
Mr. McCann: I don't want to see the Doctor suffer for something that basically
the City said go ahead and build and we approved everything and then
he comes back and asks for some relief. I don't think Detroit
Edison is doing anything wrong I just wonder who is better able to
pay for it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think when the petitioner gets back we should meet with him and
Detroit Edison and see what they want to work out and then report
back to the Planning Commission and we will take it from there.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-3-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-39-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989 on Pwetition 89-1-3-1 by Truman A. Strong, D.D.S. to vacate a
portion of a private easement for public utilities on property located
on the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Grandon Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 89-1-3-1 to allow the petitioner time to work out his
problems with Detroit Edison.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Caliburn Manor #1 proposed to be lcoated south of Seven
Mile Road and west of Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
10562
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Traffic Bureau of the Police
�.. Department stating the following: 1. I would like to see Caliburn
Drive redesigned so as to eliminate the "bypass" capability it has
as presently designed. 2. A service drive similar to those along
Six Mile Road should be provided on both sides of Newburg Road.
Nor' However, if no drives are permitted onto Newburg, this would reduce
the need. Due to street noise, the construction of berms is
recommended. 3. Residential streets should be 31 feet. We also
have a letter in our file from the Department of Public Safety,
Division of Fire, stating they have no objections to this
development but fire hydrants shown are not sufficient in number or
spacing. We have also received a letter from the Engineering
Department stating their office has no objections to the proposed
layout but the development of the subdivision will require the
widening of Newburgh Road (west side) to accommodate left-turn
movements to the subdivision area. We also have received a letter
from the Department of Parks and Recreation stating they do not see
any problem with the development of this subdivision.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We asked your father, at the study session, about the bottom portion
having a boulevard section. Have you done anything on that?
Curt Roskelly, 15125 Beech Daly Road, Redford: Yes, we submitted some plans to Mr.
Nagy.
Mr. Nagy: It has been provided for and we have a display copy.
Mr. Bakewell displayed the plans.
Mr. Nagy: You wanted the easements properly identified and that too has been
provided.
Mr. Vyhnalek: He has complied with all of our wishes.
Mrs. Sobolewski: What about the subdivision entry markers?
Mr. Nagy: Where the streets come out to Newburgh Road and major mile roads,
there is a requirement that those areas be identified with entrance
markers.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for
Caliburn Manor #1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-40-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1989 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that the Preliminary Plat for Caliburn Manor #1 proposed to be
located south of Seven Mile Road and west of Newburgh Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, be approved, as revised, subject to
submittal of a plan for subdivision entrance markers and a landscape
plan for the greenbelt easements along Newburgh Road to the Planning
`�.. Commission for its approval prior to approval of the Final Plat, for the
following reasons:
10563
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is in full compliance with all of
the standards and requirements set forth in the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance #543
`'` 2) That the proposed Prelinminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the development of the subject land.
3) That no reporting City Department objects to the proposed layout of
the Preliminary Plat.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting
property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of
Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to
the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department,
Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Caliburn Estates #1 proposed to be located south of Seven
Mile Road and east of Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8.
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 Department of Public Safety,
Division of Police, stating the following: 1. I would like to see
Caliburn Drive redesigned so as to eliminate the "bypass" capability
it has as presently designed. 2. A service drive similar to those
along Six Mile Road should be provided on both sides of Newburg
Road. However, if no drives are permitted onto Newburg, this would
reduce the need. Due to street noise, the construction of berms is
recommended. 3. Residential streets should be 31 feet. We also
have a letter from the Department of Public Safety, Division of
Fire, stating they have no objections to this development, however,
fire hydrants shown are not sufficient in number or spacing. We
have also received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to the proposed layout but they will
require the widening of Seven Mile Road adjacent to the subdivision
area. In addition, the extension of the Seven Mile Road Service
Drive west of Lot #1 across the office site will ultimately be
required. This will eliminate a 600 foot long dead-end section of
service drive. We have also received a letter from the Mr. Reinke,
Department of Parks and Recreation, stating they have some minimal
concern in respect to the flood plain and wetlands and the proposed
park to the south of the plat. Their concern with the flood plain
is its incursion into lot 27 and the effect development of the lot
may have on the flood plain. In regard to the proposed park, it
appears there are no public easements to the site.
Mr. LaPine: John, Dardanella is going to come in off Levan and go right into
subdivision?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
10564
Mr. Engebretson: In regard with Mr. Reinke's concerns, do I understand that Lot 27
has been reshaped or eliminated?
Mr. Nagy: It has been reshaped so the flood plain does not come upon it.
'► Mr. Engebretson: Regarding the street layout. I don't really know the width of
those existing streets but I would guess they are more than 31 feet.
They look to be exactly compatible with the existing streets. Would
you say that?
Mr. Nagy: True, they are.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Roskelly, would Dardanella eventually also serve the R-4
development south of this subdivision or is it going to swing around
and serve only this plan here?
Curt Roskelly, 15125 Beech Daly Road, Redford: I believe it is just going to serve
that plan on the north end of the flood plain. We didn't plan on
crossing the flood plain to that future subdivision in the other R-4.
Mr. Engebretson: That was my concern.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearong on Preliminary Plat approval for
Caliburn Estates #1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-41-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
28, 1939 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
'taw Council that the Preliminary Plat for Caliburn Estates #1 proposed to be
located south of Seven Mile Road and east of Newburgh Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 be approved subject to submittal of a plan
for a subdivision entrance marker to the Planning Commission for its
approval prior to approval of the Final Plat for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is drawn in full compliance with
all of the standards and requirements set forth in the Subdivision
Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the subject land area.
3) That no reporting City Department has objected to the proposed
layout of the Preliminary Plat.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting
property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of
Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to
the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department,
Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10565
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Revised Site Plans
submitted in connection with Petition 87-11-2-53 by Ronald Parz for
waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping center on the north
`y side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Kluver: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a question and that is that
normally at this particular part of our meeting there is no
discussion. However, there is additional information I think that
should be brought to the table and should be part of the public
record. Mr. Fred Synk, who is the attorney for Sports Giant, is in
the audience, and I think there is information that pertains to the
shopping center that should be brought to the table at this time.
Therefore, I would call upon my fellow commissioners to say that we
would open the discussion for this one particular item.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is there any objection from any of the commissioners to go to the
audience. I hear none. Mr. Kluver it has been approved for that.
This will also open it up for Mr. Parz if he wants to make any
statements.
Fred Synk, Real Estate Representative for Sports Giant, 3100 W. Big Beaver, Troy:
Mr. Kluver asked me to attend tonight. I am not sure exactly what
he wants.
Mr. Kluver: Basically, I was interested in the comments that you had made
concerning the impact on the site. Therefore, I would like to have
your comments regarding your position with Sports Giant as far as
any deficiencies that might be requested for this particular site.
Mr. Synk: As you know, Sports Giant is well under way. We think the center,
as previously approved by the City Council, is an outstanding center
much in line with many of Mr. Parz's previous developments in
Livonia and elsewhere. When we were advised of this proposed
revision, we stated our objection to Mr. Parz and his attorney and
traded some nasty letters but other than that our relationship with
Mr. Parz remains, I think, very good and we are very happy with his
progress on our building. The comments made earlier that the
center, as approved by the City Council, fully complies with all the
requirements of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance in terms of size of
parking, number of parking spaces, sidebacks and setbacks. This
proposal has several severe deficiencies with regards to Livonia's
planning ordinance, in particular you have nine foot parking spaces
instead of ten. Builder's Square has ten foot parking spaces. It
has 573 parking spaces. We think Office Max is considered a general
retailer rather than a furniture store, which we think is
appropriate. The proper count should be more like 684, leaving a
deficiency of over a hundred spaces. Office Max is not a furniture
store, it is a high-volume, very promotional warehouse style full
line office supply store that sells everything from paper to paper
clips to computers. They do carry some furniture but it is
certainly not a low traffic operation like a furniture store. We
10566
would expect their traffic, per square foot, to be as high as ours
in the Sports Giant store so therefore we think the normal parking
ratio is appropriate for their facility. Finally, the side setback
is, from my understanding, also insufficient according to the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance. We have no objection to Office Max as a
co-tenant. I think they would be a fine co-tenant. They are a
co-tenant with our other store in Madison Heights and we stated no
objections to the City of Madison Heights nor to our landlord in the
other location to their presence in the shopping center. We think
it is a good mix. Their kind of customer is our kind of customer
but we think it is inappropriate for this kind of center and I
haven't heard any reason for us to withdraw our objection.
Mr. Kluver: One question and it would relate to the site itself. It would
appear, from what you just said, from your operation, what the
modification would impact that area, that that site appears to be
overdeveloped or overbuilt.
Mr. Synk: In terms of your ordinance, yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Synk, I believe you stated at the prehearing review that
another division of K Mart, I am not sure what the name of it is,
is in a business similar to Office Max?
Mr. Synk: We have a division called Office Square in Chicago. We have not yet
come to this market yet. We turned down this site partly because we
felt it would have a negative effect on the Sports Giant store.
Mr. Engebretson: In my recollection and your remarks, you included some concern
that it was too intense a use for that particular piece of property
from their point of view.
Mr. Synk: The problem is the Sports Giant store is kind of pushed into the
corner of the shopping center and we agreed to that to accommodate
two small tenants for Mr. Parz on the end. He said he couldn't push
the small tenants in the corner. If we had known a big user like
Office Max was coming in, we could have put them in the corner and
put us on the end so that our customers can reach more of the prime
parking space. As I said Mr. Parz offered us this site and our
primary reason for turning it down was we thought it would have a
negative effect on Sports Giant.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Synk, I want to thank you for coming out here tonight and
clarifying some of these points because what you stated is exactly
how I felt about this particular petition. It is too intense for
this area. I am glad you felt the way you did about the parking. I
as one commissioner, am very insistent on 10 x 20 foot parking
spaces. All the deficiencies I see here, what he has and the
violations of the ordinances, I completely agree that this is
completely overbuilt.
Mr. LaPine: The only thing I would add that probably upsets me more than
anything else, the petitioner has 139 feet of property to the north
that is vacant that he could utilize for parking if he wanted to do
this. I am worried about what is going to happen to the other 139
feet. Is he going to squeeze another building into there?
10567
Pat Smith, appearing for Charles Tangora, Attorney for petitioner: I am puzzled.
I don't know if Sports Giant is before you or my petitioner. The
comments have been made and I think you have indicated how you feel
about this. This petition has been before you and you have many
times to review it. It was tabled to give you a chance to review
it. So all I really want to put before you tonight, having had your
ice, opportunity to review it, I would ask for a vote.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#2-42-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Revised
Site Plans submitted in connection with Petition 87-11-2-53 by Ronald
Parz for waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping center on
the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26 until the Planning Commission receives a
complete site plan. The present site plan does not include 139 feet.
If whole area were used it would not be deficient.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Fandrei
NAYS: McCann, LaPine, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
#2-43-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 573rd Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on February 14, 1989 are approved.
`r. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sobolewski, Tent, Kluver
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
89-2-8-7 by Michael C. Delaere for approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to an existing theater located on the north side
of Plymouth Road between Sears Drive and Tech Center Drive in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 26 subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan #8819, Sheet A-1 dated 2/8/89 prepared by
Morison-Delaere Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
10568
2) That Building Plan #8819, Sheet A-5 dated 2/8/89 prepared by
Morison-Delaere Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3) That this approval is subject to all conditions of the variance
granted with Zoning Board of Appeals Case No. 8812-183.
Sow
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Kluver, Tent, LaPine, Fandrei
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition
89-2-8-7 by Michael D. Delaere for approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with proposal to
construct an addition to an existing theater located on the north side
of Plymouth Roads between Sears Drive and Tech Center Drive in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 26 for the following reasons:
1) They do not meet the requirements of the parking although they do
have approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
2) That the Commission feels that the addition to this building creates
another problem for the theater if it should go under and we don't
need that type of a situation because of the fact we already have
one empty theater on Plymouth Road at Farmington.
3) It is the opinion of the Commission that this petitioner will not be
harmed if this is denied.
4) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed
use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a
balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not oversaturate an area
with similar type use as is being proposed.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, LaPine, Fandrei
NAYS: McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the resolution failed for lack of support.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, stated this item will be rescheduled for the Regular
Meeting to be held on March 14, 1989 when there will be a full commission.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
`' approved, it was
10569
#2-44-89 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the Revised Site Plans submitted in connection with
Petition 86-6-8-33 by Chestnut Hills for the construction of a multi-use
complex on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile
Roads in Section 6 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That Revised Site Plan 8504.11, Sheet SDla dated 2/13/89 prepared by
`001. Luckenbach/Ziegelman and Partners, Inc. is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That Building Plans 8504.11, Sheets SD9a, SD10a, SD10b and SD10c
dated 2/13/89 prepared by Luckenbach/Ziegelman and Partners, Inc.
are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That Landscape Plan 8504.11, Sheets Lla and L2a dated 2/13/89
prepared by Johnson, Johnson and Roy, Inc. are hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
4) That all other conditions established by the Planning Commission and
the City Council in connection with this site plan petition shall
remain in full force and effect.
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 approved,
it was
#2-45-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Revised Sign Plans for the Laurel Park Professional
Center located on the south side of Six Mile Road between South Laurel
Park Drive and Newburgh in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
New
1) That the Sign Plans prepared by Burns Sign Company as shown on
Drawing Sheets L-7, L7a and L-7br are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That this approval is subject to the conditions set forth in Zoning
Board of Appeals Case #8902-21.
3) That all window signs be removed from the structure.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 574th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on February 28, 1989 was adjourned at 11:19
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
JOies C. McCann, Secretary
I// /
ATTEST: ,
Do/aid Vyhnalek, Chairman
'41m.
jg