HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-04-04 10570
MINUTES OF THE 576th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 4, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 576th 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 55 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Herman Kluver
Raymond W. Tent James C. McCann Jack Engebretson
William LaPine* Brenda Lee Fandrei
Members absent: Sue Sobolewski
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. 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 aeny.L..g resolutions. The Commission may
use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Vyhnalek informed the audience that if they had attended tonight's meeting
relative to number 2 on the agenda, the Planning Commission had received a letter
from Anthony Soave, the petitioner, withdrawing his petition so it would be taken
off the agenda and not discussed tonight.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 89-1-1-3
by Boggio Associates, Inc. for Building Company of America requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road south of
Eight Mile Road 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. Nagy: We have a petition in our file bearing the names of nine residents
stating the reasons they feel this petition and Petition 89-1-1-1
should be rejected. We have another petition signed by some
twenty-five residents again making reference to both petitions
saying both petitions are again being treated as a single request
and they ask that both petitions be rejected. We also have a letter
in our file from the Engineering Department stating there are
10571
no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service the
subject petition area. They also state their office has no
objections to this proposal. Also in our file we have a three page
letter from Paul Boraks, owner of The Medical Plaza, setting forth
reasons why he is opposed to the rezoning of this property.
Mr. Vyhnalek: At this time I would like to call the petitioner down.
Michael Boggio: I am the architect for the project. We would like to go from RUFA
to P.S. zoning. In our minds in terms of the unification of the
zonings and organizing the planning within the area, P.S. zoning
makes sense for the following reasons: 1) It is bordered on one
side by P.S. and across Farmington Road by P.S. and kitty corner you
can see it is commercial. Behind it is R-7. To the south of it
there is a fully developed subdivision, so it leaves this little
island of undeveloped property that ultimately something will be
done with. It is our opinion that because the piece of property is
of the size and shape and proximity to Farmington Road and proximity
to the existing P.S. zoning, that it is probably not real feasible
that that property would be utilized as a residential piece of
property and it certainly is not its highest and best use
considering its proximity to Farmington road. It is our opinion
that the P.S. zoning, being a relatively low intensity use, is an
excellent use because it doesn't create any spot zoning. It simply
extends the existing P.S. zoning down to the south and it then would
unify the zoning map as far as P.S. zoning being across the street
on Farmington and a natural transition between the traffic on
Farmington Road and the multiple to the west. What we would plan to
construct on the site is a one-story residentialin character type
of a project that would be only professional offices. The size of
the site is roughly two acres. It is 198 feet fronting on
Farmington Road and 632 feet deep. There are presently three houses
on the site that are quite old and in a state of deterioration and
other than that, the property is largely vacant. I have a site plan
I would like to show you, if you have no objection as it is my
understanding that tonight's public hearing is a land use question
rather than a site planning question. We have formulated a plan by
which we would proceed if you were to look favorably on this
rezoning request.
Mr. Boggio presented his site plan.
Mr. Tent: Who would the developer of the complex be?
Mr. Boggio: The individual's name is Tony DiFederico.
Mr. Tent: Is he the same fellow who has previously developed the residential
homes at Franklin Villa?
Mr. Boggio: Yes he is.
Mr. Tent: Has he built any industrial offices of this type?
Mr. Boggio: Yes he has a project on Farmington Road just south of Nine Mile
Road and I believe there are three buildings that are in the same
type of architecture.
10572
*Mr. LaPine entered the meeting at this time.
Mr. Tent: Are these buildings occupied?
Mr. Boggio: Yes they are.
Mr. Vyhnalek: At our study meeting, one of the commissioners asked Mr. DiFederico
if he would consider houses in that area. He was going to think
about it. Did he talk to you about it at all?
Mr. Boggio: I have been out of town so I haven't spoken to him about it. It has
been our opinion, in past discussions, that the size of the property
is such that it would be tough to make a feasible development of a
piece of property that small in this location for a residential
subdivision.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We were thinking about the other two lots also.
Mr. Morrow: Is your client current owner or has he got some type of contingency
type of sale?
Mr. Boggio: He has the land under contract. I don't think he is the owner of
title yet.
Mr. Morrow: Is the contract contingent upon the rezoning?
Mr. Boggio: I don't know for a fact but I think so.
George Haratsaris, 33448 Norfolk: I am here again to speak for the petition.
Again, the primary concern is since the property appears to be too
small to be developed for residential, and we are particularly
concerned about apartment complexes going in there, we would like to
see the professional services going in there. I do have one more
question. During the study session you indicated an interest in
having the developer of this parcel communicate with the developer
of the other parcel in terms of a joint development. I would like
to hear if that conversation might have occurred, in which case the
land could be co-jointly developed.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Boggio, has there been any discussion between the two parties?
Mr. Boggio: No. There evidently was some very basic discussion but it has gone
nowhere at this point.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Boggio, it is not negative. In other words, the other party
hasn't turned it off. They still can negotiate. Is that what you
are saying:
Mr. Boggio: I imagine anything is possible but at this point it doesn't seem
likely.
Larry Parent, 33600 Norfolk: There are two issues I would like to raise this
evening. One is the letter we had sent to the commission on March
13, we refer to a piece of property located on Seven Mile Road where
residential homes are currently being constructed on a lot with
10573
about seven acres and we wondered if you had inquired into that
since it was approximately the same size? It is located just south
of Seven Mile between Farmington and Newburgh Roads. They are
building about twenty homes on a parcel that is about seven acres.
Mr. Nagy: That would be Martin Villa Subdivision.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many acres?
Mr. Nagy: About 7 1/2 to 8 acres.
Mr. Parent: When I spoke to some of the people that worked for the builder, they
indicated that some of the homes they were contemplating on building
were going to be in the 4,000 square foot range. There were
indications by the petitioners earlier that they didn't feel a lot
this size would carry residential homes and the reason we brought
this builder up was to indicate to the commission that there were
builders in the area that are willing to construct beautiful homes
in Livonia on small parcels of land. The second point I would like
to bring up, this map here, because we are in the City of Livonia,
it doesn't include Farmington. The petitioner in a previous meeting
last month indicated she was going to construct on H2 and Il high
class professional service buildings. In addition to what the
commissioners see here on the map this evening, we also have two
very large high class public service buildings that are located just
north of Eight Mile Road and one that is located on Eight Mile Road
and Gill, I believe. Both of those are very large and both have
ample vacancies currently. In addition, a lot of the public service
buildings that you see on this map also carry a lot of vacancies at
the present time.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are trying to say that you want homes in there instead of P.S.
Mr. Parent: Yes.
Carolyn Kolankowski: I am with Real Estate One. I am the lister of the property
that was sold. This property would not go for residential purposes.
The parcel that this gentleman mentioned is located among other big
homes. It is a different type of parcel entirely. It is not the
same type of property at this location. This has all three sides
commercial and professional offices and there is only one side that
is residential and actually there are three sides that would be
multiple dwellings or offices. It is not the same type of property.
You can't build a big house in that type of location.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You mentioned this development on Seven Mile. Is the property more
valuable on Farmington Road than it is south of Seven Mile?
Ms. Kolankowski: Those are very expensive lots. They run $40,000 to $50,000.
That is a different type of area entirely. There isn't any
professional offices near that property at all, therefore you could
build more expensive homes. In this particular area you could not
build a home more than $100,000. I don't think the residents would
be happy with that type of residential building.
10574
Mr. Morrow: You kept referring to the fact that the cost of the land was too
expensive. What was the basis for the cost?
Ms. Kolankowski: It was sold for professional offices.
Mr. Morrow: What is the zoning on the map?
Ms. Kolankowski: The map does not call for professional offices.
Mr. Morrow: It was sold for professional service even though it was zoned RUF?
Ms. Kolankowski: On a contingency basis that you approve this rezoning.
Mr. Morrow: I thought the other two lots were sold. Apparently the land is
being sold based on professional services even though it is zoned
RUF.
Mr. Engebretson: We have heard several people speaking to the point that that
particular piece of property can't be developed for residential
purposes because the land is too expensive or too small. I guess I
would like a professional opinion from Mr. Nagy as to whether he
would agree with that and particularly if the two pieces of land
were joined together. The second question I would like to ask Mr.
Nagy to speak to is, it is my recollection that that land in the
Future Land Use Plan is zoned or designated for low density versus
professional uses. Could you speak to those two points please?
Mr. Nagy: To answer your first question, if the five properties were assembled
to make one overall parcel, you would have sufficient width and
depth to provide for a cul-de-sac, a residential street down through
the center with a turn around at the end and could very feasibly be
developed into about fifteen to seventeen residential lots. As to
the cost involved, I would not be qualified to comment on the
economics. As far as length and width, as one overall parcel, it
could be developed residential. With respect to what the future
plan of the City of Livonia has forecast for that area, it reflects
the medium density residential housing.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy if your speculation as to the number
of lots, would that provide for lots and therefore homes that are
compatible with the homes that are bordering there on Norfolk?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. The lot sizes would be comparable to the R-3 zone to the
south, 80 foot by 120 foot depth, and therefore they would
facilitate homes of comparable size and shape as to what is now in
that neighboring area.
Mr. LaPine: I think the overriding issue here is do we need more P.S. in that
end of town, with the P.S. we have to the north and across the
street and to the south? We have a letter here from The Medical
Plaza that states he has a lot of space empty in his building. I
just don't understand why the developers feel that they are going to
be more successful getting P.S. tenants in there than the buildings
10575
that are there now and were built prior to the high rate of interest
and high cost of building. If they can't rent it at the rate they
are willing to charge, I don't see how these new buildings can get
tenants. I believe that property can be used for residential. I
think the homes there can be built comparable to the homes to the
south. I don't think either petitioner has made overwhelming
reasons why the property should be rezoned.
Mrs. Fandrei: My recollection is that both petitions have indicated they are
building not just for speculation but for their own use. Mr.
DiFederico might want to speak to that. Didn't you indicate that
you wanted one of these buildings for your own use?
Mr. DiFederico: Yes, one building.
Mrs. Fandrei: One building and we are looking at three buildings. The other
petitioner also has use for some of the buildings.
Mr. DiFederico: I think I talked to the other guy. He said he has two kids, one
son and one daughter, that is a doctor and that is why he wants to
build a medical office.
Mrs. Fandrei: I just wanted to clarify that. This is not purely speculation. It
would be difficult to market homes with R-7 on the west and P.S. on
two sides. I appreciate where the neighbors are coming from. I
would prefer, if I lived near that area, to have residential in my
neighborhood. I am concerned with what Mr. LaPine has indicated, we
have an abundance of vacant P.S. I would be more willing to be in
favor of this petition if it was one building for the use of the
petitioner but we are looking at three buildings, one for the
petitioner and unknown for the others, so we could have vacancies
for the other two buildings. Again, we have so much in the area,
not just the immediate area but in Livonia, of vacant P.S. so I am
kind of in between but I am tending to be in support of the
neighbors.
Mr. Tent: I too feel that the P.S. zoning is the question but the thing I
would like to comment on, the architect, Mr. Boggio, I think from
what I see from your rendering you are talking about a first class
building and it certainly would be an asset to the area. I would
like to see the adjoining property owners consider something similar
to that so it would be a very attractive package. I don't want to
discourage you with this type of development in the City. I think
it is great; however my only question, and I can't make up my mind
at this particular time, should the P.S. zoning and this type of
development be there?
Mr. Boggio: One thing I failed to mention is one of the reasons we designed the
site the way we did with the three buildings is because the owner
doesn't intend to build all three buildings immediately. He intends
to phase the project and build and occupy the first building and as
the need is there, he will construct the second and the third
building. He is not faced with a problem of having 20,000 or 25,000
square feet of additional vacant space on the market because as you
all know there is a large carrying cost associated with that. Since
he does have a need for the first building for himself, he is in a
10576
position to construct it and have a largely occupied building.
Based on the marketing and leasing within that, he would make his
decision as to when he would proceed with phase 2. Another thing I
would like to mention is this site in total was up for rezoning as
one piece of property two or three years ago, at which time it was
denied and one of the reasons it was denied was because the people
at the Council level decided this piece of property was probably a
good piece of property for single family residential. We have gone
through two to three years of some of the biggest building boom
times in recent memory and nothing has been done with that piece of
property except that the existing buildings have continued to
deteriorate so while you could get fifteen to seventeen lots, and I
don't question Mr. Nagy's numbers at all, and when I said it wasn't
feasible I wasn't talking in terms of zoning and lot sizes, I was
talking in terms of the viability of a developed single family
residential subdivision and just the kind of curb appeal that a
residential subdivision on that street with fifteen to seventeen
lots might have and it wouldn't have a great deal of desirability
and that is one last thing I would like to mention. We feel the
project is an excellent solution for that area.
Mr. Morrow: One of the dangers when we allow a site plan to creep into these
hearings, we get sidetracked on numbers of buildings, who is going
to do what, etc. What we have to decide here tonight, is that area
well served by professional services and should professional
services go in there regardless of how many buildings? We are
worried about viability. Have we served this area well as far as
professional services to date. Do we need more or do we need
residential to remain?
Michael Kase, 33561 Norfolk: I am most upset about the piecemealing that is going
on with these two properties. The one under discussion now and the
one that will come up later. The gentleman said he has a very
professional building going on and that might be so but then he
comes up and said there might be a little bit more and then a little
bit more. With all the emptiness I see on Farmington Road all the
way up to Six Mile, I am against rezoning this to professional
service.
Carl Gabbard: I live in the fourth house in from Farmington Road next door to Mr.
Kase. There must be half the subdivision which is against this. He
would like to see it built anyways. To me it seems like the
overriding issue is apartments. If you deny this, what is the next
issue. If residential doesn't get in there, what would be the next
case - apartments? I worry about the south side. If this gets
denied, would we have apartments next? I think that would be the
least desirable. If you approve these three lots, then the next two
lots are going to automatically be P.S.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is a good possibility.
Mr. Gabbard: You have two separate developments and while this one looks very
professional but the other one I think they are anticipating putting
a fence down through there. You have two separate lots being
developed two totally different ways.
10577
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is part of our problem. We would like to see them get together
and try to work something out.
Mr. Gabbard: I think if we could read everyone's mind, they would say if we deny
this, here come the apartments. I think apartments are the last
thing we want in there.
Mr. LaPine: I, as one commissioner, am opposed to R-7. That R-7 that is there
now was not there because the City wanted it there. It was a court
case. The developer of the land won a court case that forced the
City to allow zoning there. It wasn't the City that wanted the R-7
there. We would prefer to have nice houses in there. It was one of
those things that this body denied and the Council denied and he
sued and he won. It isn't that we want R-7.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-1-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#4-46-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-1-1-3 by Boggio Associates, Inc. for Building
Company of America requesting to rezone property located on the west
side of Farmington Road south of Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 4 from RUFA to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 89-1-1-3 pending action on Item 15 on tonight's agenda.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kiuver, Tent, McCann, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine
ABSENT: Sobolewski
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 89-2-1-4
by Soave Developments requesting to rezone property located on the
northwest corner of Seven Mile and Gill Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 4 from R-3 to P.S.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Tent it was
#4-47-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-1-4, and pursuant to a request by Anthony Soave
dated March 30, 1989, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
the withdrawl of Petition 89-2-1-4 as submitted by Soave Developments
requesting to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Seven
Mile and Gill Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4 from R-3 to P.S.
FURTHER RESOLVED, Petitioner shall not reveive a refund of his money
since the costs of the public hearing have already been incurred.
10578
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer-Eccentric, under date of
March 20, 1989 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit
Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as
listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Fandrei
ABSENT: Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
8:12 p.m. - Mrs. Fandrei was excused because of the possibility of a conflict of
interest on the next item.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-2-1-5
by Bernard and Carol Pucher requesting to rezone property located on the
east side of Louise Avenue between Eight Mile Road and Morlock Avenue in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from M-1 to R-2.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have in our file a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter in
our file from Louis Marchand, 20516 Hugh, stating this petition
should be turned down.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You want this changed from M-1 to R-2. Why?
Bernard Pucher, 20490 Louise: My wife and I live there. She got transferred
recently to Flint. We went to sell our home and discovered it was
listed under industrial. We had a purchase agreement for the
property. This has since fallen through and what we have learned
also was if our house burned down today, we would not be able to
rebuild tomorrow because of the zoning being industrial even though
residential houses existed there before there was any zoning there.
My parents owned the house originally. We now have another offer
pending on our home. We are not sure what will happen unless we can
get it rezoned to residential. Nothing has really changed in the
neighborhood. We have been living there and my parents have been
living there for many, many years and we need to sell it. We could
not sell it in an industrial type setting. Basically, we are pretty
well stuck.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is very understandable. I understand we heard rumors that
someone wanted to build on the lot north of you.
Mr. Pucher: I had one offer and that fell through. I have another offer for
both the house and the property but together in one unit to remain
residential, but again it hasn't gone through yet. I am not sure if
the mortgage company and insurance company will allow it to happen
considering if there was a natural disaster or such, they cannot
rebuild.
10579
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-2-1-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#4-48-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-1-5 by Bernard and Carol Pucher requesting to
rezone property located on the east side of Louise Avenue between Eight
Mile Road and Morlock Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from M-1
to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 89-2-1-5 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
residential use of the property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with adjacent residential uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will remove the non-conforming
status of the property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Fandrei, Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
8:18 p.m. - Mrs. Fandrei returned to the meeting.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-2-1-6
by Bruce and Toni Mette requesting to rezone property located on the
east side of Arcola Avenue between Plymouth Road and Wadsworth Avenue in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25 from R-1 to P.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from our Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is your reasoning for adding extra parking?
Bruce Mette, 19832 Norwich: We are proposing to change Lot 199, known as 11634
Arcola, from R-1 zoning to Parking. We purchased the property in
1988 with the future plan of tearing down the old and very unsound
house that existed on Lot 199 and changing it to a much needed
parking lot for our commercial buildings which are located on
Plymouth Road south of this lot. The commercial buildings now are
deficient about four parking spaces as they exist. Although we do
10580
not have a parking problem now and we have never had one ever since
we owned the buildings, we would like to add more parking to help
alleviate the problems should they arise. We believe this should
not create a problem with the surrounding neighborhood for several
reasons. One, Lot 199 has parking west, which is used for the now
existing church. Parking west of Lot 199 is zoned C-2 and to the
south there is existing parking lots which we now own.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The two buildings directly south are your buildings?
Mr. Mette: That is correct.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is in those two buildings?
Mr. Mette: There are three occupants now. There is the Silk Garden Florist, a
video store and Dan Morris Dog Grooming. There is another lot
between the two and then our existing printing company, which is
located in a 4,000 square foot building just next to that.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many spaces would this add?
Mr. Mette: I would say about nine.
Mr. LaPine: John, the church and then you have a parking lot and then a house.
Is that zoned R-1?
Mr. Nagy: The house is situated in an R-1 district and so is the church.
Mr. LaPine: When I looked at this property, the property between the printers
and the other building, you have some planter boxes. Now it is my
understanding you are going to close that in?
Mr. Mette: We are in the process of trying to do that. If the parking goes
through, we would like to add another commercial building.
Mr. LaPine: That lot would be eliminated and another building would be
constructed to be connected to the printing office and the other
building to the west?
Mr. Mette: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: How far back will your property go behind the door company on
Inkster Road? Would the parking go back to their property to the
north?
Mr. Mette: It shouldn't go back that far. What we would like to do is Lot 199
would be the parking lot and then we also have Lot 198.
Mr. LaPine: What are your plans for that lot?
Mr. Mette: We would like to build a single family home. I have some pictures
of the existing home that is on Lot 199 now that I would like to
show you. (Mr. Mette showed the picture to the commissioners) That
particular house was rented up until about three months ago and I
couldn't rent it again. It is structurally unsound. All the
utilities are shut off and I am ready to demolish the building.
10581
Toni Mette: Across the street from Lot 199 is parking and there is a little
house across the street there but on the other side of that is
parking.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-2-1-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-49-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-1-6 by Bruce and Toni Mette requesting to rezone
property located on the east side of Arcola Avenue between Plymouth Road
and Wadsworth Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25 from R-1 to P,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 89-2-1-6 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for needed
additional off-street parking for the adjacent commercial uses in
the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will represent only a small
extension of an existing non-residential zoning district in the
area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with other similar
changes that have occurred in this general area.
4) That the proposed use as permitted by this change of zoning is
consistent with and compatible to the majority of the established
uses of the surrounding 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 89-2-2-12
by Northridge Commons Associates requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate an Arby's Restaurant on property located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road west of Farmington Road in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Department of Public Safety,
Division of Fire, stating their office has no objections to its
development. We also have in our file a letter from the Traffic
Bureau of the Department of Public Safety, stating: 1. There is
adequate parking when the "Arby site" and the "Commons" parking is
combined. 2. There is a slight discrepancy in the submitted plans.
10582
To wit, the blue line print lists eighty seats while the floor plan
in the booklet shows 82 seats. 3. No employee manning schedule is
submitted, but from observation of other Arbys I am assuming eight
employees. With 82 customers, plus eight employees, 49 parking
spaces are needed. 4. The parking and traffic patterns are
satisfactory. 5. No other police related problems have been noted.
Also in our file is a letter from our Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating the parking is deficient and the sign package as proposed
will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals based upon
the number and size of signs. We also have received a letter from
the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to
this proposal.
Melissa Jenkins, Assistant Director of Leasing for Nelson/Ross Companies: I am
here this evening representing Northridge Commons.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is our understanding you want to put an Arby's up. A free
standing building in the middle of the parking lot in the front of
the shopping center?
Ms. Jenkins: That is correct. We have with us this evening the Arby's
franchisees who will be operating the store. Tom Price and Bob
Wressler. They currently own two additional Arby Restaurants. They
have brought pictures and drawings of the proposed Arby's
Reataurant. I would like them to review that with you.
Mr. LaPine: Will Northridge Commons own the property and the building will be
built by the petitioners?
Ms. Jenkins: Yes. This is a ground lease and the building will be owned by
Arbys.
Mr. LaPine: You also own the property to the east of this property. What are
your plans for that property?
Ms. Jenkins: We have been approached by First America Bank to place a bank on
this property. We have no definite plans at this time. We don't
want to have it too crowded. To give you a direct answer, I don't
know at this time.
Mr. LaPine: Have you ever considered putting the Arby's within the shopping
center?
Ms. Jenkins: We have and we discussed this during our negotiations with Arby's.
However, a good share of their business is drive-thru.
Mr. Tent: You are the lessor for the Northridge Commons Associates, so you are
in charge of the entire area?
Ms. Jenkins: Basically yes.
Mr. Tent: The requirements for parking at the shopping center are 807 spaces.
You have 783. You are 24 spaces short. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Jenkins: I was made aware of that this afternoon. Our original plan that I
submitted to the City indicated that we had 793 spaces, but we do
10583
only show 783 on the plans. To accomodate the additional parking
spaces with adding Arby's Restaurant into our plan, we can easily
accomodate them in the undeveloped area as we develop that in the
future. Secondly, in the front of the shopping center along Eight
Mile Road, there is an extensive greenbelt. We could take a portion
of that and add additional parking. However, we would prefer not to
do that.
Mr. Tent: The parking you have there, is that the regular size, 10' x 20'?
Ms. Jenkins: Yes.
Tom Price: My partner, Bob Wressler, and I operate an Arby' Restaurant in
Brighton and Owosso. This is a full time endeavor for us. Several
months ago we entered into a ground lease. Bob and I would own the
building itself and rent the ground from Nelson/Ross Associates on a
long term basis.
Mr. Price showed pictures of their other two restaurants. He also presented their
site and landscaping plans.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are having a drive-thru there?
Mr. Price: Yes. The entrance to the drive-thru can be obtained from either
roadway into the shopping center.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Price, can you tell me what was your objection to locating
Arby's within the complex itself?
Mr. Price: It is truly an economic situation. I think this is something new
and it is something that will come about in the future. We had to
get approval for a restaurant of this nature from our corporate
headquarters. They are a little bit frightful of being inside
shopping centers. It just doesn't seem to offer the same exposure
as free standing restaurants.
Mr. Tent: Do you have any Arby's within the state that is within a shopping
center?
Mr. Price: At Twelve Oaks, but that is in a mall situation. There are none in
shopping centers of this nature that I know of.
Mr. Tent: I was hoping it could be contained within the mall itself. Would
you reconsider looking within the complex if that would be the only
alternative.
Mr. Price: Frankly, I believe, we would have a real tough time. It would be
impossible to get any approval from Arby's Restaurant Headquarters.
A good thrust of our business is certainly the drive-thru especially
in light of all the industrial complexes up and down Eight Mile
Road. I honestly think it would be impossible to get approval from
Arby's.
Mr. Kluver: You indicated the drive-thru portion of this facility would be a
very key part of its success. What percentage of the volume of your
business would you say would be drive-thru?
10584
Mr. Price: That depends on seasons, weather conditions and locations. It is
hard to say what this one would be. It could be 25%. It could be
35%.
Mr. Kluver: How would you convert that into the number of cars that would be
going through the shopping center and going through the drive-thru
window?
Mr. Price: That would be on a daily basis maybe 150 to 200 cars during 10:30
a.m. until 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Kluver: It would peak at certain times?
Mr. Price: At lunch time, 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and then at 5:30 p.m. to 7:00
p.m.
Mr. Kluver: I am just curious with the size of the shopping center as presently
set up, with that amount of traffic generating through the parking
lot to the service drive of your restaurant plus the normal flow of
traffic for the shopping center itself, since you are going to have
a large grocery store there, it obviously would generate a great
deal of traffic. I guess I would look upon it as a high traffic
generator. The shopping center itself would generate a tremendous
amount of traffic within the parking area and this certainly would
have some impact on the roads and also to the type of situation
incurred in the shopping center itself. I see a lot of cars moving
in and out.
Mr. Price: You are absolutely right. One of the reasons we entered into an
arrangement with Nelson/Ross was what they offered was a center that
had some attractions. A certain percentage of our customers will
come from shoppers that are in the shopping center that are visiting
the Great Scott or any of the other associated stores. I believe,
as far as the roadway, I think Eight Mile Road is going to be under
construction for widening sometime soon.
Ms. Jennings: At this time Northridge Commons Associates have commited to do road
work between Farmington Road and Gill Road so there will be
additional ingress and egress going into the shopping center to take
up that overbearing load of traffic.
Mr. Price: That is certainly a good point. We always look at that at any of
our sites because it is great to have a lot of traffic but it is
important for us to get people into our restaurants and get them out
safely.
Mr. Kluver: This would be a high traffic generator and you are looking at that
type of traffic coming in there and you are in an area where you are
going to get a lot of traffic both through the shopping center to
support the shopping center plus your own enterprise.
Mr. Price: I can't tell you how this compares to a shopping center that would
have a video store, would have a grocery store or Frank's Nursery
for instance. Whether we would get more or fewer cars than they do,
I really couldn't speak on it.
10585
Mr. Price continued with his presentation.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is your opinion on the deficiency of 24 parking spaces? Will
that bother your business?
Mr. Price: We feel very good because of the layout. That is a concern but we
feel because of the location of this building in the shopping center
parking area that there does not seem to be a problem. We worked
out an arrangement with the developer to place our employee's
cars in a place that would not inhibit the traffic of our customers
plus this issue that Melissa had discussed about providing parking
spaces on this undeveloped area, which would be to our east.
Mr. LaPine: Melissa alluded to the fact that on the property to the east of you
a bank was going in. I assume that bank would be built with a
setback the same as yours, which would in some ways hide your
building from traffic coming from the east going west. Have you
taken this into consideration?
Mr. Price: Yes we have and we don't feel there is a problem. We feel that a
lot of the customers we would be servicing in the area, once they
knew there was an Arby's in the area, would be our regular
customers.
Mr. LaPine: So you wouldn't need one of those great big monstrous signs that
Arby's has around town.
Mr. Price: No. They are passe nowadays.
Mr. LaPine: Would you need a freestanding sign?
Mr. Price: It would be certainly grateful, if possible. We are not able to put
an Arby's Restaurant on the principal shopping center sign. A
freestanding sign would be appreciated, if possible.
Mr. LaPine: Do you also know there are two other restaurants going into that
shopping center?
Mr. Price: I believe they are on your agenda for tonight. That does not bother
us at all.
Mr. Kluver: Did you say you had internal compaction as part of this facility?
Mr. Price: We had planned a compacter that is freestanding, which is in our two
other stores. You say internal? It is a can and it crushes the
garbage.
Mr. Kluver: It is not in your building is it?
Mr. Price: No. That is not something we would want to put inside our building.
It is away from the building.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-2-2-12 closed.
10586
Mr. LaPine: The reason I am making this motion tonight I don't think we can
decide what we can do on this parcel until we know exactly what is
going on with the parcel to the east because the two together may
create some problems with parking and other things so until such
time as we have some concrete idea of what is going in east of this
building, I don't think we can move on this.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-50-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-2-12 by Northridge Commons Associates requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate an Arby's Restaurant on
property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road west of Farmington
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission
does hereby table Petition 89-2-2-12 until April 11, 1989.
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 89-2-2-13
by Northridge Commons Associates requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate a Subway Sub Shop within the Northridge Commons
Shopping Center located on the south side of Eight Mile Road west of
Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4.
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 Fire, stating their office has no objection to this
development. There is also a letter in our file from the Traffic
Bureau, Department of Public Safety, stating there were no matters
of special concern to the Police Department in this proposal. Also
in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Lastly, we have
received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their
office has no objections to this proposal.
Melissa Jenkins, Assistant Director of Leasing for Nelson/Ross Companies: I have
with me this evening Michael Southers, who is the franchisee for the
Subway Sub shop. The square footage is 1320 square feet. He does
currently own and operate several other Subway shops in the City of
Livonia. We have entered into a lease at this time pending
approval.
Michael Southers, 18555 Bainbridge: I would like to clarify one thing. I do own
and operate two other Subway franchises but they are not in the City
of Livonia. One is in the City of Farmington and one is in the City
of Dearborn Heights. I would like to place one in the City that I
do live in.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is this mainly carry out?
Mr. Southers: About seventy percent carryout.
10587
Mr. LaPine: How do you dispose of your garbage?
Mr. Southers: Usually in the dumpster provided by the shopping center.
Mr. LaPine: Who takes it out to the dumpster?
Mr. Southers: My employees and sometimes me.
Mr. LaPine: Have you ever considered putting in a small compactor for your own
garbage.
Mr. Southers: I have never thought of it.
Mr. LaPine: There is always a problem when you have employees take garbage out
in back to a dumpster, as you probably know. They throw it. If it
hits, it hits. If it doesn't, it doesn't. You have a lot of
residential behind you and I don't want to start seeing rodents
around there. That is a concern I have.
Mr. Southers: That is a valid concern. As well as being a franchise owner, I also
work for the Subway Corporation. I am what you refer to as a
Development Agent. I am responsible for developing franchises. One
of the things that Subway tells me to really inspect when I am
checking the stores is the cleanliness of the interior of the store
as well as the outside.
Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of the operation.
Mr. Southers: Normally we are open 11:00 a.m. until midnight. Two o'clock on
weekends.
Mr. LaPine: How many employees will you have?
Mr. Southers: Generally no more than three. At most four.
Mr. Kluver: Just a comment concerning internal compaction. I certainly
appreciate your intent and I think with a shopping center this size
and apparently the type of shopping center we are presenting here, a
strong consideration should be to have that type of facility
incorporated into your restaurant because obviously we are moving to
newer times and we are looking at advances in technology. Bill
Knapp stores have internal compaction. Obviously they had success
with it and I would think other operations could be obviously
successful.
Mr. Southers: I would be more than willing to look into it. It is something I
have never considered.
Mr. Morrow: In a sub shop couldn't most of the garbage be handled through the
disposal.
Mr. Southers: Yes most of it will be. I would probably have more broken down
boxes being thrown away than anything else.
Mr. Morrow: You are talking trash then as opposed to garbage. Do you have a
disposal in your plans.
10588
Mr. Southers: Yes it is.
Mr. Morrow: So most of it will be trash as opposed to garbage. I don't want the
people to think we are going to have a good deal of garbage out
there when most of it will be carried out through the sewage.
Mr. Southers: The bulk of my garbage would be broken down boxes.
Mr. Tent: I would like to compliment Mr. Southers on the statement he made
that the corporation is insisting that the proprietors police both
the inside and the outside of their operations because in so many
areas they are only concerned with the inside of the building.
Mr. Southers: We are very concerned with the outside because that is the first
thing the customers see when approaching the store.
Mr. Tent: This always concerns me going into a shopping center with paper and
debris laying out in the parking lot. If each proprietor took it
upon himself to clean up the area, they would be more favorable to
some of the development going on in the City so keep up the good
work.
Mr. LaPine: The Subway Sub Shop, I assume, offers some kind of sandwiches?
Mr. Southers: Sandwiches and salads. No hamburgers nor hot dogs. No grilling or
frying. We do bake our own bread.
Mr. LaPine: How many seats will you have in the shop?
Mr. Southers: Seating for 32.
Mr. LaPine: I understand about 70% is carry out.
Mr. Southers: Approximately 60% to 70%. The seating is usually basically for
lunch time. We will fill it up at lunch time. Other than that, it
won't be filled up.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
approved, it was
##4-51-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-2-13 by Northridge Commons Associates requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a Subway Sub Shop within
the Northridge Commons Shopping Center located on the south side of
Eight Mile Road west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
4, the City Planning commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 89-2-2-13 be approved subject to the condition
that the maximum number of seats in the restaurant shall not exceed 32,
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
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
10589
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
adjacent uses in the area.
4) That the proposed use is typical of the services provided by
shopping centers.
5) That internal compaction be incorporated into the store space.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
11543, 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 89-2-2-14
by Northridge Commons Associates requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate a Coney Island Restaurant within the Northridge
Commons Shopping Center located on the south side of Eight Mile Road
west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: Basically the same correspondence we received in connection with the
Subway Shop. All reporting City departments find no objections with
the proposal.
Mr. LaPine: John, what is the total square feet of that shopping center?
Mr. Nagy: 160,000 square feet.
Mr. LaPine: Is there going to be any restaurant of any type in Great Scott?
Mr. Nagy: Not that I am aware of.
Melissa Jenkins, Assistant Director of Leasing for Nelson/Ross Companies: There
are only going to be three restaurants in the shopping center.
Great Scott does not have any type of restaurant nor do they have a
section in the lease which would allow them to do so.
Mr. LaPine: They don't have any snack bar or anything like that?
Ms. Jenkins: They do have a yogurt machine and a delicatessen area. Our intent
with the petition is for the Coney Island measuring 1600 square
feet. It is 20 feet wide by 80 feet deep. Originally, in our
discussions with Mr. Nagy, we had about 400 people who wanted to
open up a Coney Island in our shopping center and we have tended to
narrow it down. We have two candidates currently. Both have
extensive experience. Until we do have a final selection of who we
do want in the shopping center, we are looking to have the use
approved aside from the operator. We do recognize that the operator
is a very integral and important part and are looking to have a well
known and recognized Coney Island operator in the center.
10590
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, do they have to come back to us?
Mr. Nagy: You are really dealing with the use of the property. We would feel
a little different if it was a freestanding restaurant but since
they are internal to the shopping center itself, confining
themselves to four walls with no exterior ramifications at all, we
feel comfortable in dealing with it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If we agree with this and we put down certain stipulations, no
matter who goes in they have to abide by them.
Mr. LaPine: Here again, as Mr. Kluver alluded to, if we approve this on the
condition that you have inside compaction for any garbage is that
going to be any hindrance on you?
Ms. Jenkins: It certainly is a reasonable request and I am a resident of Livonia
so I think it is wonderful.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-2-2-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-52-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-2-14 by Northridge Commons Associates requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a Coney Island Restaurant
within the Northridge Commons Shopping Center located on the south side
of Eight Mile Road west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-2-2-14 be approved subject to the
condition that the number of customer seats in the proposed restaurant
shall not exceed 78, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) That internal compaction be incorporated into the store space.
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.
10591
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-2-2-16
by Meadowdale Foods, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD
and SDM licenses in conjunction with a new Great Scott Supermarket
located within the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center on the south side of
Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry Ruff Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 23.
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. We also have a letter in
our file from Arthur & Virginia Oswalt of 30544 Hoy Road stating
they could not be present at tonight's public hearing but they
strongly recommend denial of this waiver and look forward to
receiving the concurrence for denial by the Planning Commission.
Daniel Sandberg, Corporate Counsel for Meadowdale Foods: I have with me tonight
Larry Rasmussen, Vice President of Real Estate for Meadowdale Foods,
the owner of Great Scott Supermarket. This is our petition for SDD
and SDM licenses to be used in conjunction with another one of our
super stores, which again we stress one-stop shopping. One thing I
would like to stress to the commission, as we have with our other
store on Eight Mile and Farmington, what we are considering, if we
are granted the petition here tonight, would be utilizing the SDD,
the packaged liquor sales, behind a counter service. We feel that
the consumer research that we have done and the survey of many of
our consumers who frequent our stores, indicates they are looking
for a one-stop facility. This is something we can offer them. Not
only beer and wine, not only liquor but again a deli sales, salad
bar and also health and beauty aids. Everything that they would
want to pick up in a supermarket. Another factor that we looked at
is if you are going to have beer and wine and liquor sales in your
City, the safest and cleanest place you would want to have them in,
which we feel is one of the most responsible places, is the
supermarket here. We have a well-trained staff. Also we find, and
I think the Liquor Control Commission would concur, that in a
supermarket setting the sales to minors are much less than at a
party store atmosphere mainly because they find that there are more
adults present and it is very unlikely that a minor is going to want
to stand in line with several adults waiting to purchase the liquor.
I have spoken with several investigators who seem to concur on that.
Their targeting is more toward the party store atmosphere because of
the darkly lit parking lots in those areas not the supermarket in
which unfortunately the lines do sometimes get long and they are
going to have to wait to buy liquor.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is a new license? The one on Eight Mile was a used license?
Mr. Sandberg: That is correct. At the present time we are contemplating a new
license, however, if the transfer would be denied at the Eight Mile
store by the Council on April 12, we would attempt to utilize the
transfer at this location. Again, we feel we are before the
commission on a waiver use, whether it is new or a transfer.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The square footage of the two stores. This one is quite a bit
smaller. Is that correct?
10592
Mr. Sandberg: I believe it is 43,200 square feet versus 45,000 square feet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It would be the same concept?
Larry Rasmussen: The store is 43,200 square feet versus 46,800 at Eight Mile and
the same concept exactly, shrunk proportionately in all areas.
There is a very, very, small difference.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Rasmussen, I will tell you again, I think you people are doing a
tremendous job with Great Scott. I have looked at the stores you
have renovated and it is really an asset to the City. I hope you
continue doing that type of work. I want to compliment you. Next
question now is to Mr. Sandberg. In your opening remarks you were
saying you were considering behind the counter liquor. Now did you
mean considering?
Mr. Sandberg: We will do it. What I was going to say, we are considering where to
put it in the store. There is a considerable amount of work that
goes into laying out the stores and because of this change that we
have made, it is tough to lay it out on a quick basis, where it is
going to go we can't tell you but it will be in there at a service
counter.
Mr. Kluver: You indicated you are making application for the SDD and SDM or you
presently have an SDD and SDM?
Mr. Sandberg: The application I believe has been submitted to the Liquor Control
Commission but it on hold pending local concurrence.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Rasmussen, it has been stated that this liquor is going to be
sold behind the counter with its own cash register and it is going
to be packaged behind this counter? There will be no mixing
whatsoever?
Mr. Rasmussen: That is correct.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-2-2-16 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-2-16 by Meadowdale Foods, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses in conjunction with a new
Great Scott Supermarket located within the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center
on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry
Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
89-2-2-16 be approved with respect to both the SDM and the SDD Licenses
subject to the condition that, with respect to the SDD License, the
petitioner shall provide for behind the counter sales of packaged
beverages covered by the License, for the following reasons:
1) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate both the SDM
License and SDD License uses.
10593
2) That all applicable waiver use standards and requirements set forth
in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance ##543 are being
complied with.
3) That both proposed uses are compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Kluver, McCann, Morrow, LaPine
ABSENT: Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of majority.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#4-53-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-2-16 by Meadowdale Foods, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses in conjunction with a new
Great Scott Supermarket located within the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center
on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry
Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning
Commission does hereby table Petition 89-2-2-16 until the Planning
Commission will have a full commission at the meeting of April 18, 1989.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: McCann, LaPine
ABSENT: Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. LaPine: I request that we ask a legal opinion from the City Attorney if a
tie vote constitutes a denial.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, would you have that for our next study meeting?
Mr. Nagy: We will endeavor to get an answer.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition 89-3-2-18
by Robert Tamm requesting waiver use approval to construct a fast oil
change facility on property located on the south side of Grand River
Avenue between Inkster Road and Rensellor Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 1.
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 Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. De-
ficient front yard setback. Required is 60 ft. and proposed is 37
ft. 2. Plans do not provide for a complete underground sprinkler
10594
system. We also have a letter from the Traffic Bureau of the
Police Department stating the proposal is acceptable as submitted.
Also the Fire Marshall indicates their office has no objections to
its development. Lastly, we have a letter from the Engineering
Department stating it is recommended that that portion of the 5 ft.
high screen wall located along the centerline of the original 20 ft.
alley at this location be waived for the following reasons:
A. There is an existing east - west sanitary sewer located within
the public easement area of the original 20 ft. wide alley. B. It
is our understanding that the areas south of the subject site will
also be zoned C-2. Other than that their office would have no
objections to this proposal.
Robert Tamm, 25835 Southfield Road, Suite 201, Southfield: I bring to you today a
site plan which was approved in essence by the Planning Commission
approximately six months ago. I have a colored site plan and I
would like to show you the changes we have made.
Mr. Tamm presented his site plan.
Mr. Tamm: What we have done here is the City recommended to us and made us
aware that there was a City owned piece of property, a little wedge,
which the City was interested in selling. We have gone through the
proper channels and we have been approved to purchase that piece of
property. What that allowed us to do was instead of having our
building coming in through the front and stacking up, one of the
concerns of the City Council was possibly stacking into the street,
that allows us to go to the rear and exit. It is a much nicer
looking building. There would be no cars out in front of the
building. In reference to the wall, the City Engineer suggested we
not put up a wall. The owner of this property is here right now and
he would like to see a wall there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to put a wall in. It is not required in that area, but the
neighbor wants the wall so you are going to oblige him. You will
put the wall on his property?
Mr. Tamm: Ten feet into his property.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What about the variance? Have you been to the Zoning Board of
Appeals yet?
Mr. Tamm: No. The Board said they would not hear us until there is a
determination of the waiver use.
Ralph Campbell, 27428 Long: I would be directly behind the oil change place. I
I am not really opposed to it but as he mentioned I would like to
see a wall there for my privacy if we can come to some type of
agreement. The only other concern I have is at that corner where
Eight Mile and Grand River come together, right now we do have four
quick oil changes. One is at Eight Mile and Inkster on the
Southfield side. One is at Grand River and Eight Mile on the
Farmington Hills side. Then you go up Grand River east just west of
Inkster Road and you have one on the Redford side. All of these are
springing up in the one area. I just hope the market can bear it
because I would hate to see all these go up and then the buildings
be vacant.
10595
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-2-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#4-54-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-3-2-18 by Robert Tamm requesting waiver use approval
to construct a fast oil facility on property located on the south side
of Grand River Avenue between Inkster Road and Rensellor Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-3-2-18 be approved,
subject to a variance being granted with respect to the front yard
setback requirement by the Zoning Board of Appeals and with the
following additional conditions:
1) That the site plan marked sheet 1 dated 8-29-88, as revised,
prepared by Carne Associates Inc. , Architects which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
3) That the building elevation plan marked Sheet A3 prepared by Walsh
Bishop Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
4) That the wishes of Ralph Campbell of 27428 Long be agreed to in
writing before any permits are issued or construction is started
with respect to the wall.
5) That a lawn sprinkler system shall be installed.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Kluver, McCann
ABSENT: Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10596
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-3-2-20
by Consumers Power Company requesting waiver use approval to construct a
natural gas regulator station on property located on the west side of
Newburgh Road between Amrhein road and Grant land Avenue in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Also in our file is
a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no
objections to the proposal. A letter from the Chief of Police
states the proposal appears acceptable as submitted. Also, a letter
from the Fire Marshal states their office has no objection to this
proposal. We have also received a letter from Mary and Charles
Hirschlieb, 37651 Grantland, stating they object to this petition
because this is not in keeping with a residential area that we have
at present. Also Newburg Estates plat does not approve of this type
of building in our section. They further ask that we please
register their vote to no as they cannot attend the meeting.
Robert A. Young, Jr. , of Consumers Power Company in Jackson: I am the applicant
for the waiver use request. If you have a specific question I will
refer those to Mr. Davis from our Gas P&T Department.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Why don't you tell us exactly what you want to do.
Richard Davis: I work for Consumers Power Company. I work in the Gas P&T
Engineering & Construction Department. The two lots in question are
Lots 2 and 3 of the Newburgh Estates Subdivision. We are requesting
a waiver use approval to allow us to construct a gas regulator
stastion on the site. I have an overhead of site plan showing what
we propose to do.
Mr. Davis presented his site plan.
Mr. Davis: At present our gas distribution system here in the community is
operating at capacity. In order for us to continue to supply our
customers and to provide for future growth in the community, we need
to upgrade our facilities and to do this what we propose to do is to
bring a new natural gas supply into the community and construct a
gas regulator station to bring in a larger volume of gas into this
community. This particular site is centrally located in our
distribution system and it would allow us to more effectively
distribute this supply of gas to our customers. The main part of
the station is located on the back portion of Lot 2. There is a
telephone utility easement on the boundary between Lot 2 and 3 and
also a telephone and utility easement that divides the north and
south. This particular arrangement makes it more difficult. I
would normally have centered it on that portion but with those
easements in there I have located on the back quadrant on Lot 2.
Right now there is an existing home on Lot 2. We would remove that
home and just extend the driveway to the back portion of the lot.
This particular station we would fence with seven foot high chain
link fence. There would be a gate across the driveway. That would
prohibit any access by unauthorized people. Everything would be
locked.
10597
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the size of your building?
Mr. Davis: We have one building that would be 10 foot wide by 20 foot long.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How wide?
Mr. Davis: Ten feet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The gas line to this new facility, where is it coming from?
Mr. Davis: Right now we have a distribution line at this particular area that
is parallel to Amrhein Road and what we propose to do is tie into
that line and construct a new sixteen inch line along Newburgh and
come into the site.
Mrs. Fandrei: Have you considered any other sites for the location of this
regulator? Anything that would not be so close to the residential
area?
Mr. Davis: Yes we have. This particular area is the area that would be most
beneficial for our use and there is not very much vacant property
along Newburgh Road. We have checked several sites and we were not
able to obtain an option on them.
Mrs. Fandrei: Do you have a need for the septic tank that is now on that property?
Mr. Davis: No.
Mrs. Fandrei: Are you going to fill it then?
Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on Mrs. Fandrei's question regarding
the location of this facility adjacent to residential area. How
much latitude to you have in terms of serving your particular needs
in terms of where you locate this? Do you have to be within a half
a mile of where you are here or could you locate a mile in either
direction?
Mr. Davis: We have looked in this area between Amrhein and Plymouth Road and we
did not have any success in securing other property other than this
one.
Mr. Engebretson: What kind of time frame have you allocated for this project and
what kind of sense of emergency do you have to get this project
under way?
Mr. Davis: I had mentioned that right now, during the last heating system, we
are at our capacity. We feel we can go through this next heating
season but we would like to have it in service in the Fall of 1990.
We could go through one more winter but that would be the limit.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you work with anybody at the City in terms of trying to find
an alternate location that might be in either an industrial or any
kind of an area rather than residential or did you do all of your
searching on your own or through real estate representatives?
10598
Mr. Davis: We had done all of our searching on our own.
Mr. Engebretson: With respect to the adjacent neighbors, what kind of odors would
they be subjected to from this facility?
Mr. Davis: Through normal daily operation there shouldn't be any odor from the
station. Natural gas is odorized. With the normal daily operation
there shouldn't be any odor. There will be no venting of gas to the
atmosphere. On occasion there can be an odor when we do certain
maintenance operations. Periodically we do have to work on the
regulators and we have to evaporate all the gas from the piping,
which means sending it into the atmosphere so on occasion there
could be an odor from this particular station but it won't be on a
regular basis.
Mr. Engebretson: How do you define a regular basis Mr. Davis? Does that mean once
a year, once every other year, once a week or how do you categorize
that?
Mr. Davis: About once or twice a year.
Mr. Engebretson: Could you comment on the risk, if any, that this facility would
pose to the adjacent neighbors in terms of exposure or any other
kind of natural disaster.
Mr. Davis: That is a difficult question. The station is going to be designed
and constructed in accordance with the Michigan Gas Safety Code. It
is a code that is published by the Michigan Public Service
Commission. We have to abide by their rules so this particular
station will be designed and constructed in accordance with those
rules. It is difficult to quantify. There shouldn't be a great
risk. I guess it would be similar to the risk a person might have
if they had a gas line in the roadway in front of their home. It
is designed to be safe but there is some risk.
Mr. Engebretson: Does Consumers Power, or your industry as a whole, have any kind
of statistics as to the safety factor or the risk to the nearby
residents that would come about as a result of this type of
facility?
Mr. Davis: I am not aware of any.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you have any problem raising a family on the adjoining lot?
Would that cause you any concern?
Mr. Davis: No I don't think so. We are having the site fenced and we are using
materials and construction practices that are recognized as being
safe. I believe we will be putting up a safe facility and we will
not endanger the people of this community.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many stations do you have in Livonia like this?
Bob Gardner, Supervisor from Farmington Road Office: We have probably a half a
dozen more like this in the City.
10599
Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you ever had any problems.
Mr. Gardner: Not at this type. They are designed with monitor rigs. They are
designed for safety.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are any of these six by any residential homes?
Mr. Gardner: Yes they are.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you get any complaints?
Mr. Gardner: We occasionally get complaints because of a relief valve blowing but
that is designed to do that. It is a safety valve.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Engebretson asked all my questions but I do have one on the
safety. Mr. Davis you weren't very positive about your answers and
that concerns me because you do have several regulators within the
City and my question would be, do you have any complaints at the
Newburgh and Six Mile station because that has been there for a
number of years?
Mr. Davis: Nothing that I know of.
Mr. Tent: Could you actually say that out of all your installations you have
never had a hazard or an explosion that would be detrimental to a
neighborhood.
Mr. Davis: Not as far as I have been involved in.
Mr. Tent: You could say you have had none?
Mr. Davis: There was one situation on the east side and probably some people
might remember it. There was a fire but it was handled very
professionally and there was no loss of any property. A gas line
did rupture. Yes, in a gas industry occasionally gas lines do
rupture and there are occasions when things happen. These are built
very safely. We do everything that technology can let us do to make
sure they are safe.
Mr. Morrow: We are trying to quantify this safety factor. How would you measure
the safety factor as it relates to bringing natural gas into your
home for heating? Is there a greater risk or less risk of an
explosion?
Mr. Davis: It would be a less risk.
Mr. Morrow: I think that is what I was looking for trying to measure it against
the safety of a gas furnace. I think most of us have gas furnaces
and we would be horrified to think that it could blow every night
but it doesn't happen that often. It is less dangerous than having
natural gas in a furnace?
Mr. Davis: Yes.
Mr. McCann: You said you did have some complaints about relief valves but you
said this station would not have any relief valves so you won't have
those problems you had with the other ones.
10600
Mr. Davis: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: Is this station going to produce any noise?
Mr. Davis: The operation where we do regulate the gas, where we reduce the
pressure, there is a noise involved in that particular operation and
those regulators are enclosed in the building so it will be on an
acceptable level.
Mr. McCann: What type of noise are we talking? A bulldozer, a lawnmower, a
dishwasher? What would you compare the amount of noise to and what
hours will it be producing this noise?
Mr. Davis: The station will be in service 24 hours a day. In the fall when it
is cold you will get more noise. In the summer months you will get
very little noise if any. You don't normally hear it when you are
off the property.
Mr. LaPine: Along Newburgh Road near Amrheim there are a number of vacant
industrial parcels. Have you tried to purchase one of those to get
away from residential?
Mr. Davis: I wasn't specifically involved with the site acquisition. The
person we had searching for a site, he had indicated he had checked
a number of parcels but was not able to secure anything. I am not
sure of the specifics.
Mr. LaPine: There is an on site computer or some type of monitor that if
anything happens here, you get a flash into Jackson and you call
right away to a local Consumer employee and somebody gets right
there and checks on the problem. Is that correct?
Mr. Davis: Yes. We have a data acquisition system where data is fed by a
telephone line from this site back to our energy control center in
Jackson and there is a dispatcher on duty 24 hours a day. He
monitors not only this station but many other stations in our
system. If a problem develops he calls the appropriate people who
in turn dispatch someone to the site to dissolve the problem.
Mr. LaPine: Let's assume you got a flash in Jackson that there was a problem at
this location, what is the time lapse before someone is out to look
at it.
Mr. Davis: We have service men that are working 24 hours. They would be
dispatched there first.
Mr. LaPine: I am trying to find out from the time you get a flash from this
location to Jackson and then Jackson back to Livonia, are we talking
one half an hour, an hour, fifteen minutes?
Mr. Davis: Fifteen minutes.
Mr. LaPine: This is monitored in Jackson 24 hours a day?
Mr. Davis: Yes.
10601
Tom Bolduc, 34590 Grandon: I am glad I attended. There are a couple of things I
would like to address. Would anybody here like that, regardless of
how safe, how utra sound it is, how beautifully constructed it is, a
seven foot chain link fence right next to your house or a block away
or three blocks away with this type of device going on? They can't
really tell you how much noise is going to be emitted. How often it
is going to be emitted. Certain gases. Would anyone here want that
in their subdivision? What is that going to do to the existing
property value of those houses. I can't conceive that. It sounds
like the convenience of Consumers Power where we kind of looked
around and said this is easy for us to put it in a residential area
instead of let's do our homework and work with the City and find an
industrial park. What is it going to do to your property value?
Could you sell your homes? Think about it. That is all I am
asking. I came here on another issue tonight I just wanted
everybody to think about what transpired and I just can't believe
Consumers Powers said this is the best we have done folks.
Mr. Morrow: Have you seen the site sir?
Mr. Bolduc: No sir I haven't but I have a vivid imagination. I don't think it
takes a rocket scientist to picture having a consolidated gas
fixture building especially with a seven foot chain link fence. I
don't care if they have the greatest looking building.
Mr. Morrow: This commission spent a lot of time checking the site sir, that is
part of our discipline in making a decision. Please stop by and see
it.
Mr. Bolduc: Would you Mr. Morrow, regardless, would you want that in your
subdivision?
Mr. Morrow: I haven't decided whether I want it or not. I am just trying to
point out the fact that you are taking us to task on what we want or
don't want.
Mr. Bolduc: I am not taking you to task. I am saying that Consumers Power
sounds like whatever is convenient for them, this is what they are
doing, and I am addressing the commission strictly on the site. I
haven't seen the site. Maybe I will go there tonight. Regardless
of what it looks like, would you sir like that in your subdivision?
I can't picture that in my subdivision.
Mr. Kluver: You are not an abutting property owner and all abutting property
owners are notified of this particular situation. I appreciate your
comments and they are well taken. We are looking at this
objectively. The adjacent property owners are notified of this and,
at this point in time, we have not heard from anyone who is an
adjoining property owner either pro or con. Obviously, my
conclusion is that you are not in favor of it. I, as one
commissioner, appreciate your comments and I don't think there is
much more we can add to it at this point. We have to look at it
objectively.
Mr. Bolduc: What I am concerned about. You said none of the petitioned people
showed up?
10602
Mr. Kluver: I said all adjacent property owners are notified and none of
those adjacent property owners, at this point, have made any
comments. I don't know if there is anybody out there that wants to
make a comment, but at this point nobody who lives next to it has
made a comment pro or con. I think that is an important point. I
appreciate your comments but I don't think it is totally germane to
the site and what is going to happen there.
Mr. Davis: What I want to address is the fact that you are saying none of the
people who were petitioned are here. I understand, correct me if I
am wrong, it is a fact that within 350 feet they are notified. I
was totally unaware that this subdivision that they were building, I
didn't know about it until Friday, so there is apathy.
Mr. Vhynalek: We just go by the ordinance.
Mr. Tent: I guess I want to apologize to the people who are falling asleep in
the audience waiting for item number ten but each item is very
important. I hope that you have seen what the process is for a
petition.
Mrs. Fandrei: I do want to comment to our young gentleman I do live near one of
those stations. .
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-3-2-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
#4-55-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-3-2-20 by Consumers Power Company requesting waiver
use approval to construct a natural gas regulator station on property
located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Amrhein Road and
Grantland Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
89-3-2-20 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked drawing No. H-4885 dated 3-30-89, as
revised, prepared by Consumers Power Co. , which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
2) That the Landscape Plan marked drawing No. 905-F dated 3-31-89, as
revised, prepared by Consumers Power Co. is hereby approved and the
landscaping shown thereon shall be installed prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked drawing No. 4845-1 dated
3-16-89 prepared by Consumers Power Co. which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards
and requirements set forth in Section 5.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #1543.
10603
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Engebretson
ABSENT: Sobolewski
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 89-1-6-1
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Sections 2.08, 10.03 and 11.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to establish
regulations regarding restaurants and other types of eating
establishments.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is a petition brought by the City Planning Commission.
There was no one present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-1-6-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#4-56-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-1-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine
whether or not to amend Sections 2.08, 10.03 and 11.03 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 to establish regulations regarding restaurants and other
types of eating establishments, the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 89-1-6-1 for further review.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski
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 89-2-6-2
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Sections 2.07, 8.03, and 27.04 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 and to add
two new Articles to Zoning Ordinance #543 which will provide regulations
for condominium type projects.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This again is a petition brought by this board. We are going to
review condominiums and what the definition of a condominium is and what
the definition of an apartment is to have more clarification in the
zoning.
10604
Mr. Nagy: There will be two new sections in the Zoning Ordinance that will deal
with a set of regulations to regulate the placement of condominium
developments, one for low rise, one for two story developments, and
another for high rise developments over two stories. It is a brand new
section within the Zoning Ordinance. They will have their own set of
standards and that will regulate exclusively condominium developments
and will set them apart from other forms of housing.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-2-6-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-57-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine
whether or not to amend Sections 2.07, 8.02 and 27.04 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 and to add two new Articles to Zoning Ordinance #543
which will provide regulations for condominium type projects, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 89-2-6-2 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will provide the City
with more control over the location of apartments and condominiums.
2) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will provide developers
with more definitive direction as to the preferred locations of
apartments and condominiums.
3) That there are site development characteristics unique to
condominium projects that require special regulations to guide and
control their development so as to assure compatible and harmonious
development.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-2-6-3
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend the
Zoning Ordinance #543 by the addition of a new Article which will
provide for the preservation of certain designated areas of the City as
"Nature Preserves".
Mr. Vyhnalek: Again, this is a petition by this board to add a new zoning district
designated as NP, which will help preserve our natural preserves.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-2-6-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
adopted, it was
10605
#4-58-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Petition 89-2-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to determine
whether or not to amend the Zoning Ordinance ##543 by the addition of a
new Article which will provide for the preservation of certain
designated areas of the City as "Nature Preserves", the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
89-2-6-3 be approved for the following reason:
1) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will provide for the
preservation of certain valuable natural areas within the City of
Livonia.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
I#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 Preliminary Plat
approval for Arbor Park View Subdivision proposed to be located on the
south side of Ann Arbor Trail, east of Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 33.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
the following: 1. Appropriate widening lanes north and south of the
existing pavement area along Ann Arbor Trail will be required to
accommodate left turn movements to the existing and proposed
subdivision area. 2. It would appear that storm drainage from the
subdivision must be outletted through the William Holliday Park area
to the Tonquish Creek drain located in the City of Westland. The
developer should review with the park authority the procedures that
will be required to outlet through this park (i.e. , the requirement
to establish public easements through the park in the name of the
City of Livonia for the storm sewer system as well as environmental
considerations. ) We also have received a letter from the Fire
Marshal's office stating their office has no objections to its
development contingent upon the installation of an adequate and
proper water main and fire hydrants. There is a letter from the
Traffic Bureau stating it is their recommendation that consideration
be given to widening Ann Arbor Trail, east of Wayne Road, to extend
the existing left turn lane. Lastly, we have a letter from the
Department of Parks and Recreation stating they could not find any
discrepancies or problems that would be caused by the development of
this subdivision.
Paul D'Orazio, 18271 Farmington Road: We are considering developing this proposed
property into 36 lots on which we would build traditional brick
homes in the $120,000 to $140,000 range.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is going to be the size of those lots?
Mr. D'Orazio: Most of them are 70 foot width. We have only eight that are 65 foot
width.
10606
Mr. Vyhnalek: They are leaning more towards R-2 than R-l. Have you discussed the
RUF property east of this property towards Wayne Road? I think it
is three or four acres. The vacant lot.
Mr. D'Orazio: Apparently the owner of the back piece, I think he is going
to attempt to get the C-2 extended.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You had no negotiations with him at all?
Mr. D'Orazio: No.
Mr. LaPine: That parcel the petitioner tried to have rezoned C-2 before this
board is at Council level now. Assuming it is denied at Council
level, would you be amenable to buying that parcel? If that
rezoning is denied by the Council, would you be interested in buying
that parcel so you could extend the single family homes into that
lot so we could get an exit out to Wayne Road?
Mr. D'Orazio: At this point I can't really answer that because my better half is
not with me. It would be too early to tell. We want to try to make
a complete subdivision out of what we have there.
Mr. LaPine: I have a problem with all the traffic dumping out on Ann Arbor
Trail. I think the ideal situation would be that we have an exit
out to Wayne Road. The other question would be how are you going to
get your sewers? What are your plans.
Mr. D'Orazio: That is still in negotiations. We are considering either an
easement through the front commercial piece onto Wayne Road. We are
still looking into a possibility of an easement through the park
with the City of Livonia. It is in the hands of our engineer,
Michael Priest and Associates. Another gentleman with me, John
Mahn, might have another suggestion with an adjacent property but
those are two options I know of right now.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Wasn't there a third option to go up to Ann Arbor Trail.
Mr. D'Orazio: Not knowing about the design of Ann Arbor Trail with the utilities,
there must be a reason why they didn't consider Ann Arbor Trail.
Joseph Sullivan: I live in the Cherokee Trail Subdivision right north of the
property in question with my wife. We are 32 year residents. We
have a great interest in this neighborhood and this property. I
would like to make five points. First point I would like to call to
your attention, which you already know, is that the nature of this
whole area is primarily residential. We don't need any commercial
in the area. We don't need any professional service. It is
residential, in fact, and most appropriately. It is bounded on the
north by the Rouge River and Hines Drive and it is bounded on the
south by William Holliday Parkway, etc. To the south of that are
the great developments of wasteland. We are in that part of Livonia
that is forgotten. Very few times do we see anybody from Livonia.
The characteristics of this neighborhood are single family
residential, actually and logically and populogically. I have lived
10607
there for 32 years and I have had many occasions in which I have had
to rise in opposition to plans and proposals to that parcel of land.
These plans have always been very explotive and didn't take into
consideration the community at all. We have been subjected in my
neighborhood over the past year, maybe Mr. Nagy remembers some of
these, with threats and blockbusting techniques and so forth in
trying to get our cooperation and support to rezoning it for such
things as pop stores. I don't think the present situation follows
through in that case. Therefore, it is a pleasure for me to come
here to be able to indicate possible positive support for the first
reasonable proposal for that land that I have seen since I lived
there. The idea of 36 single family residential homes being
constructed to the south of me I think is very natural, nice and
appropriate and in that respect I laud the builder. Of course, the
obvious ploy is how this will affect the land to the east and
enlarge the commercial. You people, I am sure, will be able to deal
with that. Traffic - 36 houses aren't going to contribute to any
more traffic. Not compared to K-Mart, Westland and all the stores
to the south. Something will have to be done with those roads
eventually but not because of the 36 house subdivision.
Ronald Bajorek, 9011 Hanlon: I have lived at this address for six months and it is
encouraging for me to see that there are so many people from this
area that have concern enough to come down here and express
themselves about this. I myself favor having a subdivision put in.
From what I have seen so far the natural surroundings across from
Ann Arbor Trail don't seen to be the prettiest sights. It would
seem to me that if a subdivision was put in there regulated
according to the size and nature of the structures, I think it could
generally benefit the whole area. I also have a concern about
maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood,
specifically the concern which was brought up by I believe it was
Mr. LaPine earlier concerning the eastern portion of the proposed
area. I feel strongly if that could also be made residential it
would certainly add to the value and attractiveness of the entire
neighborhood. The other concern of mine, maybe this is not the time
to bring it up, I would also like to have some discussion or learn
what type of homes are going to be put in here. The petitioner
addressed himself to this only very briefly and it only served to
arouse my curiousity more. I would only hope that the homes that
are going to be put in here would be of sufficient size and
character to not only conform to the existing subdivision, which is
north of that, but also add to the value of that subdivision. I
really want to know what kind of deed restrictions and covenants
that would run with these deeds concerning the minimum size of these
homes. I would also like to see what some of the proposed models
would look like. I also have a particular concern about traffic on
Ann Arbor Trail because mine is a corner house. We do have a
certain amount of road noise now and if there is going to be
increased traffic, that would be a real concern of mine and that in
itself would cause me to want to go along with seeking ingress and
egress from Wayne Road, which would decrease the congestion on Ann
Arbor Trail and therefore decrease the amount of noise my home would
be exposed to. I would hope there would be a little more
discussion. I am generally in favor of it but at this point there
are some answers that I need to have before I can give my full
support to it.
10608
Mr. Vyhnalek: I would like to have Mr. D'Orazio answer some of those questions
because I think many of the other residents want to know the same
answers to the same questions. What size of homes, etc.
Mr. D'Orazio: The homes are approximately 1500 square foot colonial and minimum of
1200 foot ranch, both of which will have a brick first story. The
price range would be approximately $120,000 to $140,000.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is that compatible to your houses to the north?
Mr. Bajorek: Approximately. The only difference being that the Cherokee Trail
Subdivision is exclusively ranch homes. There are no colonials. It
would seem to me that the addition of colonials in the proposed
subdivision would only add to the value of the homes in the Cherokee
Trail Subdivison. I wouldn't have any problems with that at all. I
would like to see if he could show us any existing photographs that are
already done that he has put up.
Mr. D'Orazio: A single home model would be located on Stamford on the south side
of Seven Mile, west of Farmington Road. There are two homes that
were just built there.
Mr. Bajorek: I would like to make sure the landscaping would conform to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That will have to conform.
Mr. Bajorek: As I expressed before I am concerned with the land to the east of
that.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is our concern also but that is before the Council and we can't
do anything on that until the Council makes a decision.
John Cottrell, 9024 Laurel: I am in favor of the subdivision. It will enhance the
neighborhood. My question to the builder is what percentage do you
propose to go into a colonial. How many colonials?
Mr. D'Orazio: Unfortunately I can't forecast that yet. I would tend to believe
the amount of ranches might be bigger in that area.
Mr. Cottrell: You are going to go in with 36 homes. I don't want to see 25
colonials and the rest ranches. Cherokee is a subdivision of single
family ranch homes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You would like to see 50-50?
Mr. Cottrell: Maybe smaller than that. The other thing is we are talking dollars
here and Cherokee Subdivision has approximately 41 homes in it, who
is going to pay for widening Ann Arbor Trail on the north side?
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering letter required the proprietor of the subdivision to
widen Ann Arbor Trail from Wayne Road to their two streets both
north and south.
Mr. Cottrell: I live on Laurel. How are we going to get out? If you are going to
lengthen the left hand turn lane. How are we going to get out going
10609
eastbound. I drove for Shell Oil for 12 years. I had to leave the
house at 4:30 in the afternoon in order to start work at 6:00
because it took 20 minutes to get out on Ann Arbor Trail to go to
work. This is a traffic burden. We went to the Council on this Ann
Arbor Trail thing. I don't want to defeat the subdivision. It is
good for the area. It is good for Livonia but something has to be
done about this traffic pattern.
Mr. Nagy: The proprietor will bear the full expense to widen Ann Arbor Trail,
both north side and south side. During that time you might be
inconvenienced and have to use Grandon to get out to Wayne Road. As
a result of his work and his improvement, after that work is
completed you and your neighbors in Cherokee Subdivision will
benefit from that widening. For the duration of the construction
you might be inconvenienced but in the long run you will be greatly
benefited at the expense of this proprietor.
Jack Young, 34203 Ann Arbor Trail: I lived in there for 32 years and I believe I
have helped at least half a dozen drunks out of cars that have come
up over the yard and hit the telephone poles. All these years I
have been picking up beer bottles and whiskey bottles on my front
yard. I am going to let the other people talk about the economic
situation. I want to talk about politics. Do you know that
Westland runs right behind our property there and over a period of
years Nankin Mills Tavern has tried to enlarge. They have tried to
put in batting cages. At one time they even had helicopters landing
in there. I support this subdivision. It sounds good $120,000 to
$140,000 homes. That park area should not be tampered with. No way
should there be anything done to change the natural resources.
Tom Bolduc, 34590 Grandon: I have lived there eleven years. Unfortunately, I want
to get back to the point of not being notified. I live on Laurel.
I didn't find out anything about this development until late Friday
evening.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We notify within 500 feet.
Mr. Bolduc: Everybody who has been here for a number of years has been paranoid
for years and they think it is going to be a K-Mart, a Murrays, etc.
Thank God for the homes. I think if the people really had their
druthers, they would like to leave that area as it is. Do you
realize what is really happening to Livonia? I think we are turning
into Canton. We are building like crazy. There isn't going to be a
square inch of Livonia that isn't going to be covered by asphalt for
a driveway, or a parking lot or some type of building. Is it
absolutely imperative that every square inch of Livonia is turned
into some type of home, building, parking lot? I am not too excited
about what Mr. Nagy said about we are going to benefit by the
widening of Ann Arbor Trail. That is hypothetical.
Mr. Tent: I want to tell you something. I am concerned for you. You have
been here eleven years and in the process of receiving public
notices, I am not promoting the Observer Newspaper but the Observer
10610
Newspaper is the legal newspaper and all City Hall legal notices are
published in it. The paper comes out on Thursdays and Mondays. I
am talking about future petitions. All public hearing notices are
also published in that paper.
Mrs. Fandrei: Council has also been concerned that many people have not gotten
notices on different petitions. We are in the process of an
ordinance stating that a sign must go up on the property that is to
be rezoned so that all residents are aware of that rezoning. That
is in process right now. We are also in agreement with you about
overbuilding.
Mr. Bolduc: Whatever consideration might be given. We don't know where the
drainage is going. One other thought. Everyone seems to be
concerned about how they are going to be developing the property.
Now they are saying colonials. At one time I thought it was going
to be just like ranches. Every home in that entire area is a ranch.
There are no colonials. Let's just keep them ranches.
Anita Cooper: I live east of where the builder wants to build. I think it is
about time that builders took into consideration the community. The
builder doesn't live in our community. He isn't going to be
directly affected by the traffic. I am not against the houses going
in but what I don't ever want to see is the dead end Dover opened
up and I know that is what the builder is trying to do. He has been
trying to buy the other people out. We have kids in that
neighborhood and we don't want to have accidents because people are
trying to come down Wayne Road and if he opens up Dover they are
going to cut across through the subdivision. People do not go 25
miles per hour in rush hour traffic and this builder just doesn't
care.
Ray Discher, 34157 Dover: For the past 32 years I have lived here. I would like
to ask the builder if there are any plans for him opening up Dover
to run over and dump traffic on to Wayne Road or off Wayne Road.
That is a no no.
Mr. D'Orazio: As we said this evening we are just asking approval on what is in
front of us. If we ever did want to, we would have to sit down like
this again wouldn't we?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Yes. This is the plan that he is submitting tonight.
Mr. Discher: In other words that BBla and BB2a are not for sale. You did not try
to purchase that piece of property on the corner?
Mr. D'Orazio: Originally when they were trying to piece together a subdivision I
can't say they didn't attempt it. Unfortunately I wasn't present
when the real estate broker went door to door trying to piece
together the land. This is what we came up with. this is what we
bought. This is what we are working with.
John Mahn: We did try to acquire the two parcels. The reason why Paul did not
know that is because he wasn't involved at that time. We did try to
buy them but the prices were too exorbitant.
10611
Mr. Vyhnalek: That church property. You have not bought that?
Mr. Mahn: We are in negotiations for that for drainage.
Mr. Discher: This is the way it is going to be? There is going to be no cut
through to Dover? If you would try to do us a favor and try to
relieve some of that traffic on Ann Arbor Trail because I live the
third house from the corner and there is many a day that I have to
sit and wait for two, three or four cars.
Patricia Pashukewich: I own 34407, 34405 and 34401 Ann Arbor Trail. That is east
of the property in question. I would like to set the record
straight. Mr. Mahn works for Southwest Brokers and he approached my
husband and I and he said he would like to purchase some of our
property in back to open up a street to Dover and he asked if he
could survey the property and we said yes he could. He contacted
the girl next door and her husband and she is here to tell you her
side of the story. We purchased that property to build a home for
ourselves. My son and his family rent two of the other homes. Mr.
Mahn called us into a meeting and he said he would like part of the
property for a street. He offered us $15,000 for almost two acres
of property. We did not know what his intentions were. So we came
down to City Hall and we spent several days down here finding out
from the Engineering Department they needed water, they needed
sewers. We found also right now it is zoned R-1 through the Circuit
Court in 1980. We found they are zoned R-1 with 70 foot lots that
goes to R-2. Once the subdivision is there, Mr. Mahn is going to
come back and say I have a dead piece of property. I am going to
have to have it zoned C-1 and you are going to say you are right.
No one is going to buy it unless it is C-1. I am for the
subdivision but I don't like being lied to and all these people have
been lied to. When we went down to the Engineering Department, it
was already cut and dried. A guy down there said we don't care what
you people say a subdivision is going in there. I don't like that.
I don't like being told certain people have certain people in their
back pocket.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Those kind of remarks are not needed. That is zoned for housing and
nobody has to be in anybody's back pocket to put a subdivision in
there. It is zoned for that.
Mr. Morrow: If we could just stick to the plat.
Lady from audience: I live right next door to the property. 34417 Ann Arbor
Trail. I am concerned with my home and widening of the street. I
want to see exactly how it is going to be. Mr. Mahn has also said
one thing and done something else.
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department will review the plans and then they will
be available for your inspection.
Mr. Morrow: I don't want to just sit here and bring in a lot of things that
don't pertain to what we are looking at and that is a piece of
property that is zoned residential and state law requires that it be
platted and meet all the criteria for that zoning and the residents
10612
are down here to see what those lots are going to look like and when
they put houses on them whether they are one story or two story and
if they meet the ordinances of the City of Livonia as well as the
building codes and that is what we are looking at tonight.
Engineering will take care of how the road is going to go in and
make sure this lady's house is not going to be hit by traffic off
Ann Arbor Trail so let's stick to the plat.
Mr. Vyhnalek: There are other circumstances Mr. Morrow. When stories are going
around that a road is going through. They want to know what is
happening.
Mr. Morrow: Is there a road on that map from Dover? If there are no roads,
they can't possibly go through. If they did want to put one through
then we would have another hearing. That is the point I want to
make.
Mr. Kluver: We have been here many hours this evening. We have a petition here
for preliminary plat approval. Mr. Morrow has made comments. It is
getting a little out of hand. We operate by Robert's Rules of
Order and you are the Chairman. I would appreciate it if we would
get back to Robert's Rules of Order and operate in a proper manner.
If anyone has anything to say address the chair, make your comments
if they are germain to this issue and let's discuss it. Not make
innuendoes, third party conversations only conversations pertaining
to this preliminary plat and addressed to the chair in the proper
manner.
Barbara Dowel, 34616 Grandon: If you drive down Laurel, you drive right in my
driveway. My concern is not that they are going to build homes
other than the fact that I would also agree they should all be ranch
homes, my main concern is the traffic pattern. At the present time
around evening traffic we average 75 cars at least shooting through
our subdivision. There is no traffic control there right now.
There is a sign that says no through traffic. Last summer because
of multiple accidents at the corner they did put a left turn signal
light at the corner of Wayne Road and Ann Arbor Trail. Since that
time we still have accidents. It has increased our number of cars
that shoot through Grandon down through Laurel or Hanlon. My
concern is will there be stop signs put in there since obviously
people will not want to stop at that corner at Wayne Road. That is
my question.
Mr. Vyhnalek: A stop sign at Laurel and Ann Arbor?
Ms. Dowel: Will there be any stop signs on Grandon?
Mr. Vyhnalek: That has to be taken up with the Traffic Department.
Ms. Dowel: It is a problem.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I understand that but we cannot answer that. You could ask our
Traffic Department for stop signs.
Ed Ruether: I am a member of Timothy Lutheran Church. We own Lot AA1. I would
10613
like to stick to the plot. We have a little confusion. I had
to check with Wayne County to find out they purchased the
green area, which is a ravine for wildlife refuge, and we sold
them that in 1960 and we have access to go from our church
along Stark. If Wayne County owns that right of way and the
builder builds homes on 9, 10, 11 and 13, how are we going to
get into AA1 and what will happen if we want to build on AA1?
Will the builder have to take 13, 14 and 15 and put a road in
there so we would have access to build a home in there?
Mr. McCann: I have a question. The property where the proposed subdivision
is going in, Wayne County did not own it at the time?
Mr. Ruether: That is right. We sold the property to Wayne County.
Mr. McCann: I am talking about the subdivision property.
Mr. Ruether: Originally we owned this land (Mr. Ruether pointed it out on map)
In 1960 Wayne County offered to buy this portion and we sold it to
them in 1960 for $8700. I went to the city to try and get a map to
tell me what the width of the road is and nobody could tell me so I
went to Wayne County and that is where I found the answer. My
problem is if we want to use AAlc, are we going to be locked in
here?
Mr. McCann: You asked whether you would be able to put a road in. The county
has never owned that property so they could never give you a right-
of -way. Evidently they gave you a right-of-way across their
property and if it is too steep of an embankment to get across, that
is a problem you will have to resolve with Wayne County.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Maybe Mr. Nagy can help us out.
Mr. Nagy: I think Mr. McCann said it as well as I could attempt to say it. At
the time you sold your property to the county, the county was aware
they were going to landlock you with respect to that triangle area
so to avoid landlocking you they gave you a right of access across
the area that they were acquiring from you. So your access point is
within the county property not this private property.
Mr. Tent: I understand Mr. Mahn is negotiating with you now to purchase AAlc.
If he should purchase that property from you, then you wouldn't have
a problem with that.
Mr. Ruether: That is right. Mr. Mahn said we would have to get an appraiser for
that land and it would probably cost us $500. Why get an appraisal,
we know what is going to happen. He is not going to build on it.
Mr. Tent: He said he was going to use it for the drainage only. That would
answer your problem if he bought it and you wouldn't have to worry
about egress or ingress.
Mr. Ruether: We would like to retain this as R-1 and hopefully 6 and 7 would be
eliminated and a road would come through here and homes would be put
in here. I would like to know if this is possible.
10614
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is not possible until the City Council makes a determination on
the petition before them. They are trying to change it to C-1.
Right now we are just concerned with those 36 lots.
Mr. Ruether: If you agree to this, he doesn't have to put a road in there?
Mr. Vyhnalek: We could table it but some of the commissioners would like to see
this subdivision go up.
Gloria Bown, 34365 Dover: I am at the end house and I only have one interest in
this, keeping our dead end street because I am more aware than a lot
of people of the conditions.
Mr. Nagy: It is not part of the plot. This plan will be 360 feet west of the
dead end street. There are two intervening properties that are not
even zoned in accordance with the plat. They are zoned RUF. This
property is zoned R-1. You would have to deal with the rezoning
issue first. That issue is not part of the plat.
Tom Drago: I live on Norwich, which is just east of the subdivision that you
plan on putting in. The question that was raised, the builder was
very vague about what he was going to do with the sewers. My
parents live in an area in Dearborn Heights that was overdeveloped
and every time it rains, they get water in the basement. My main
concern is where the sewers are going to run.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I am sure Mr. Nagy read that very clearly.
Mr. Drago: Another point is Ann Arbor Trail. Four o'clock in the afternoon is
very bad but eleven o'clock on Saturday morning is even worse.
Sally Falls, 34276 Dover: He has four homes coming out onto Ann Arbor Trail. I
would like to know how much green he has to have and also how are
they going to back out on the Trail. How are they going to get out?
Mr. Nagy: Two of the four, their garages will come off newly extended streets.
They are talking about the two center lots, 24 and 25. Their
driveways will extend out to Ann Arbor Trail.
Ms. Falls: So they are going to be backing out on Ann Arbor Trail?
Mr. Nagy: The lots would be made sufficient so the property owner will be able
to turn around within the lot area.
Ms. Falls: What kind of green line?
Mr. Nagy: In a R-1 zone area the setbacks from the sidewalk has to be at least
25 feet. R-2 would be 30 feet.
Sue Pashukewich, 34407 Ann Arbor Trail: I live there and I am in agreement with
all the other people that traffic is terrible but my main concern is
I don't want the commercial going into section 11B2a. Who owns it?
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are getting off the subject again. We are just talking about
the preliminary plat. That parcel is before the Council and will
come up at a Council meeting. You can attend that meeting.
10615
Ms. Pashukewich: I had a feeling it was the same owner as the R-1 section.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is not.
Ms. Pashukewich: Mr. Mahn told us at the February 28th meeting he owned it.
Mr. McCann: It is 11:30 at night. We have seven more petitions to get through.
I think we have covered all the ground at least three or four times.
I would like to close the public hearing.
Mr. Vyhnalek: After this young lady finishes.
Ms. Pashukewich: I am opposed to a subdivision to the extent that it is going to
leave this property unavailable It is clearly zoned R-1 and they
are trying to get it C-2. I want it to stay residential and not
approve a subdivision that would leave it open for rezoning. I like
the subdivision but then I don't.
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
Arbor Park View Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-59-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4,
1989 on Preliminary Plat approval for Arbor Park View Subdivision
proposed to be located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail, east of
Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning
Commission does hereby table Preliminary Plat approval for Arbor Park
View Subdivision pending resolution of the rezoning petition of the
abutting property currently being considered by the City Council.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: If we could direct a letter to the City Council to aprise them of
this action and why we did this so they could have the benefit of
knowing that as they consider the other item.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#4-60-89 RESOLVED that, 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. be
taken from the table.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Engebretson
ABSENT: Sobolewski
10616
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
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
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 89-1-1-1 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are
compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing
character of the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with good land use
policy of providing for a buffer or transition use between
residential uses and more intensive land uses.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: McCann, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine
ABSENT: Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
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
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Pewtition 89-1-1-1 be denied for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the Future Land
Use Plan recommendation of medium density land use for the subject
area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning would represent a further
intrusion of non-residential zoning into a residential area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning would be detrimental to the
residential uses in the area.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine
NAYS: Kluver, Tent, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
ABSENT: Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
10617
#4-61-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table 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. until the meeting of April
11, 1989.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-62-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Regency Circle Subdivision #2 proposed to be located
north of Joy Road between Hix and Pere in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
31 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat is in conformance with the previously approved
Preliminary Plat.
2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat.
3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the
City have been taken care of.
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.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-63-89 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 574th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on February 28, 1989 are approved.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-64-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-3-8-10 by Livonia Development Associate,
L.P. for approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance
#543 in connection with a proposal to construct Phase One of a
multi-story office complex (Victor Corporate Park) located on the north
side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and I-275 in Section 6 be
10618
approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals downsizing the parking bays from 10 foot wide to 9 foot wide
and also subject to the following conditions:
1) That the First Phase Site Plan for 1000 Victor Coprporate Park
including the accessory parking structure as shown on the plan dated
March 24, 1989 prepared by Add, Inc. Architects is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Plans for Tower 1000 with accessory parking
structure as shown on the plans dated March 24, 1989 prepared by
Add, Inc. Architects are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the Landscape Plan for Tower 1000 as shown on the plan dated
March 7, 1989 prepared by John Grissim and Associates is hereby
approved and shall be installed on site prior to occupancy;
4) That all future restaurant parking spaces meet the 10 foot wide
requirement.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-65-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with
Petition 89-3-8-10 by Livonia Development Associate, L.P. for approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #I543 in connection
with a proposal to construct Phase One of a multi-story office complex
(Victor Corporate Park) located on the north side of Seven Mile Road
between Newburgh Road and I-275 in Section 6.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-66-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
89-3-8-9 by TMP Associates, Inc. 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 office building located on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Hidden Lane in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 88043A, Sheet C1.1, prepared by TMP Associates, Inc.
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan 88043A, Sheet A3.1, prepared by TMP Associates, Inc. is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
10619
3) That Landscape Plan 88043A, Sheet L1.1, prepared by TMP Associates, Inc.
is hereby approved and shall be installed on site prior to occupancy
of the addition.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#4-67-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 89-3-8-11 by Fred J. Armour for approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543 in connection with
a proposal to construct a retail sales building located on the north
side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 86D-647 dated 2-27-89 prepared by Affiliated
Engineers, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan 86D-647 dated 5-11-87 prepared by Affiliated
Engineers, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the landscaping shown on the approved site plan is hereby
approved and shall be installed on site prior to building occupancy.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-68-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Hart and Leidal Investment
Co. for a wall and two ground signs located at the Civic Center Office
Plaza, northeast corner of Five Mile and Farmington Road be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the proposed signage for the Civic Center Office Plaza by Hart
and Leidel Investment Co. as shown on the plan prepared by
Kamp-DiComo Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted the
necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals and any
conditions set forth by that board.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10620
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 576th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on April 4, 1989 was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
James C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST: �
Donald Vyhnallek, Chairman
jg