HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-02-28 13893
MINUTES OF THE 699TH REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 28, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 699th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jim McCann, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 50 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow C. Daniel Piercecchi
William LaPine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg
Members absent: Jack Engebretson
Mr. McCann 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 awn 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 become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
`r.•
tonight.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
94-12-1-25 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #718-94, proposing to rezone property located between
Inkster Road and Goff Street, south of Seven Mile Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 12 from R-1A and C-1 to NP.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane can you explain to the audience exactly what the Nature
Preserve is under the new ordinance?
Mr. Shane: The Nature Preserve zoning district was established in order to
have a way of further preserving City-owned lands which would be
encompassed by flood plain or particularly unique forest lands or
wetlands. These particular lots which you see are not only
within the flood plain itself, they also are forested, and
therefore they come under the criteria for Nature Preserve. What
the ordinance says is you may not use them for anything other
than open space type activities in that that way it preserves
them forever and always as an open space area and they cannot be
used for building purposes.
13894
Mr. Morrow: Just a clarification H, the red triangles we see up there, I can
assume that is City-owned property?
Mr. Shane: Yes. The reason other properties in the area were not included
is because they are not City-owned property.
Mr. Morrow: And they cannot be designated Nature Preserve?
Mr. Shane: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak to this item?
If so, please come forward.
Ivan Meyette, 18811 Foch: I am all in favor of making that Nature Preserve. I
couldn't hear what you said about the other three parcels.
Mr. Shane: The other three parcels are privately owned and therefore could
not comply under the NP district because it is only for
City-awned property.
Mr. Meyette: Can they fill that in?
Mr. Shane: Not only is the Nature Preserve a way of preserving the land but
also there is a flood plain ordinance which indicates that you
cannot use the property for anything but open space even though
it is private property. So you have two controls here. One is
the Flood Plain Ordinance and the other is the Nature Preserve.
Mr. Meyette: Ever since I lived there it was my understanding it was all flood
`'r►' plain anyway and it couldn't be built on. I am completely in
favor of keeping it as Nature Preserve. If that thing ever backs
up and comes across the street, it is going to be right in our
basement. I would like to keep it as Nature Preserve.
Ralph Williams, 18630 Foch: I would like to express my support for the proposed
change, and also I have a proxy for two of my neighbors that
couldn't be here tonight.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-1-25 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-28-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 94-12-1-25
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#718-94, proposing to rezone property located between Inkster Road and
Goff Street, south of Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
12 from R-1A and C-1 to NP, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-1-25 be approved for
the following reasons:
13895
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the City's
desire to preserve those City-owned properties which meet the
criteria necessary to be designated as a "Nature Preserve".
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
preservation of the subject properties in their natural state.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-1-1
by William L. Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on the
west side of Stark Road, between Pinetree Avenue and Edward Hines
Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from PL to R-l.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
`"�► Mr. Piercecchi: I notice in our notes here H that many of these lots, although
they are in a RUF zone, do not meet the 1/2 acre lot requirement
of an RUF district. What percentage of homes meet that criteria?
Mr. Shane: In your package you have a map that is color coded and I would
say by looking at that map probably maybe 1/3 of the lots that
abut the lot itself are perhaps 1/2 of the RUF size lots. The
other half would be smaller even though they are zoned RUF.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward.
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I represent Camborne Engineering, who in turn
has negotiated with the Livonia School District. Mr. Watters is
present this evening if you have any questions for him. We
negotiated and won the bid to proceed hopefully to rezone the
property so that we may have a residential sub with 60 foot lots,
which would end up with 13 residential lots. In return Camborne
Construction would remove the existing abandoned school and give
to the School Board, upon improvements, a certain number of
improved lots for their industrial arts classes to build four
homes. I think it has been pointed out that presently the first
thing we never want to hear is spot zoning. I contend this would
not be spot zoning simply because to the east, as the gentleman
13896
pointed out earlier, you do have an R-1 section that we are
contiguous to or directly across the street from. Also to the
north on Pinetree, on the south side of Pinetree and on the
north, it is zoned RUF but certainly they are not of RUF size. I
*ft. would also like to point out that most of the lots on Laurel and
adjoining lots on Orangelawn, the majority of these lots are 66
feet wide by some very excessive depth, so all the lots in turn
would be a minimum of 60 x 120. I feel that with the lack of any
organization in this immediate area that says this is an RUF
district, as you have in certain areas, I feel that this area
would adapt very nicely to 60 foot lots. I am sure you all went
through the area and there are some very nice homes. There are a
lot of asbestos siding homes. There is not a lot of organization
such as because of the very excessive depths you have 30 foot
setbacks, 50 foot setbacks, 70 foot setbacks, so it is nothing
constructive in what I would consider an orderly up-to-date
fashion. I honestly believe that if Camborne Construction were
permitted to have the rezoning and construct the homes, you would
find that this would certainly be an asset not only to the City
of Livonia but also to all the adjoining property owners. I do
not think in any way, shape or form this would impair the health,
welfare or safety of the neighbors or the City of Livonia. Thank
you.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Roskelly, you just said you had a plan of 13 lots. Is that
correct because our notes show there are 17 lots?
Mr. Roskelly: Excuse me, that is correct. We have 17 and of the 17, in the
agreement, we would be contributing 4 to the school for their
construction and we would build on 13.
Mr. Alanskas: So there will be 17?
Mr. Roskelly: That is correct sir.
Mr. Alanskas: The two facing Pinetree, will those be larger lots?
Mr. Roskelly: I don't know if you have a copy of the proposed plat. We have it
on the board.
Mr. Alanskas: They look larger. That is why I am asking.
Mr. Roskelly: While he is setting up the plan I would like to add one more
remark. This building, which is in excess of 25,000 square feet,
contains a lot of asbestos and other toxic things. I believe now
that it is abandoned it is an accident waiting to happen. I
suggest it behooves this board and the City to perhaps think very
seriously of removing this building because I can't consider any
other proposed use of this existing building, and certainly for
the betterment of this City the building should be removed. I
think the answer to your question is yes they are larger lots.
Mr. Alanskas: What are the sizes?
13897
Mr. Roskelly: The two lots on Pinetree, the one lot on the corner of Stark and
Pinetree would be 96 1/2 feet wide and the one west of that would
be 85 feet wide. You will notice the depth is 120, and in this
case they are 119 but they exceed the minimum area of an R-1.
Mr. TaPine: Mr. Roskelly, when I went out and looked over the area, it seems
to me there is more open land there than there is developed land.
Most of it is in large parcels. Have you looked at going to R-3
instead of going to R-1?
Mr. Roskelly: We have considered everything from RUF to R-1 and certainly the
economics, first of all I believe the area with the quality of
work my company does in the form of finished homes, I believe
that area, if we were granted permission we would be placing
homes in there in the area similar to my Western Golf Estates at
Inkster and Five Mile Road, maybe a tad less, but I believe in
the area of $120,000. From a marketing standpoint I think we are
stretching the band and I don't believe we could come in and
market a home in a much larger amount of money than that.
Mr. TaPine: Can you give me a reason why you feel that way?
Mr. Roskelly: I guess my history in building and developing in the City of
Livonia, I usually critique to areas. For instance Seven
Mile/Newburgh, which is partially my area, that is, of course, a
$200,000 area. Western Golf Estates started at $119,000 and now
is at an average of $150,000. My 1/2 acre lots at Six Mile will
certainly be in the $200,000 range. I have two or three other
subdivisions in that specific area. Looking at the immediate
area, the adjoining homes, I think this would, with exception but
in most cases, certainly be an upgrade in the area if we built
homes in the area of $120,000. I also am anticipating that each
home will have an attached garage.
Mr. LaPine: I can't say I completely agree with you but that is my opinion.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Roskelly, there have been a couple of other petitions to have
a much more intensive use on that site. Were you involved in any
of those in the past?
Mr. Roskelly: I was not involved other than on one occasion. I was involved
where a certain group of people that wanted the building to stay
intact and they were going to use it, I believe, either for a
private school or a church. Other than that I have heard rumors
but no sir I have not been any part of any negotiations prior to
this.
Mr. Morrow: I was wondering how you became aware of the property. I think the
main thing here is to know that the City has been faced with some
intensive use on that site, and we have an opportunity tonight to
consider a much more residential nature type of thing. That is
the point I would like to make.
13898
Mr. Roskelly: I can certainly agree with you on that Mr. Morrow. I think the
main thing here is with this building now being abandoned it
behooves this board and all the commissions to certainly consider
something reasonable. For instance, the demolishing of this
school is a huge amount of money. In addition to that, if you
look at that site you will notice there is a difference in grade
of about 10 feet from the north plateau to the south plateau.
Fortunately, in our studies we have made test holes and it is
sand and we were quite concerned over any fill areas because of
the history of the area in Hines Park. It is very good,
excellent sand. We have a good opportunity to feather this down
and, of course, I have my own engineering firm and we have the
experience to groom this properly and create a very attractive
subdivision.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would you revisit the 13 and 4 for us? You said you would build
on the 13 but the other four?
Mr. Roskelly: They would be turned over to the school and their industrial
classes would build homes as they did on Stonehouse off Joy Road.
Mr. Piercecchi: They would build homes?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes and they have in the past. I am sure if you are interested,
Mr. Watters could speak of that program. It is quite an
excellent program. They are industrial arts classes I believe.
As far as those four homes go we would have certain restrictions
to the homes and the school has agreed that they would comply
with whatever design and value of homes that we would put in.
Mrs. Blomberg: Mr. Roskelly, I was interested in size and square footage of the
homes, and also your proposed construction of exterior homes.
Mr. Roskelly: Size wise I think we are looking at what would be either a ranch,
a cape cod or a colonial. The ranches I would think would be in
the area of 1200 square feet. The cape cods and colonials would
be around 1400, 1600 to 1800 square feet with attached garages.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
Doris Bradley, 9650 Laurel: I wanted to voice my approval for the school board
selling this parcel of land because I realize that the existing
structure of that school is a drain on the maintenance project.
However, I was assured from the school board this summer that
this parcel of land would be rezoned to R-2, which would be in
conformance with the adjacent property, mine being one of them.
Mr. McCann: Where do you live Ma'am.
Ms. Bradley: To the left of the parcel in one of the larger lots. Basically
the development would be adjacent to my back yard. I have a
13899
couple of general comments and I want to address a few things the
developer said. Generally, my position is R-1 zoning is
inconsistent with the surrounding properties. They are uniform
pretty much in their classification otherwise, and I disagree
``m. with the developer on that point. I feel that an island of R-1
zoning there is not in the best interests of the nearby residents
nor the community in general. I think 17 homes allowed by that
zoning versus maybe 8 to 10 allowed by R-2 represents excessive
profit goals, quite frankly, and I think those are gains that
those of us in adjoining lots will pay the price. It will
decrease property values and cause traffic and noise from that
many homes, and even the ability to resale our property should we
so chose. We would support a rezoning to only R-2 or higher than
R-1. I don't know what RUF is but not R-l. Not 17 houses. To
directly address what the gentleman before me said, he said that
a lot of the lots on Laurel Street are small. While that is true
further down Laurel towards Plymouth, but when you get to this
area where this plot is, the lots are very much larger. He said
he didn't think the market was there for higher priced homes. I
can directly say that is not true because I bought one and they
bought another. I happen to know that is not true. Although he
said these lots to the north that are RUF zoned are not actually
RUF, I don't know what they are but I know they are at least R-2.
I know they are not R-l. I don't know why they have not looked
at R-2. Maybe they cannot justify cost wise going to RUF in that
plot of land but to me R-1 is completely excessive and the noise
and traffic along Stark Road will be horrendous, which it already
is. I think it is just not in the best interests of those of us
that live right there. Seventeen houses is pretty excessive for
that plot of land.
Mr. McCann: For the record Ma'am, the staff did plot the three houses
directly north of the subject parcel. One is smaller than R-1
and two comply with the R-1. They are smaller than R-2. Just to
set the record straight.
Ms. Bradley: Where is that?
Mr. McCann: On the north side of the red striped parcel.
Ms. Bradley: Immediately to the west?
Mr. McCann: Those would all, according to the Planning staff, either comply
with RUF or R-2.
Ms. Bradley: That is where I live.
Richard Potts, 9551 Stark Road: We occupy the property immediately to the south of
the school property. I too agree with the fact that something
must be done with that building. It is an eyesore in the area,
and it has no other uses. It is in very bad decay. I am glad to
see something is moving on this. My concerns are the following:
the drainage in the area along that south line is along our
13900
property line. The map provided by the City actually shows the
drainage through the middle of the PL property there. That is
half way up the 10 foot drain so that is not the drainage line.
Where the water runs in the spring, and the water does get high
in there, is down my property line with the school property.
With the construction in there I am concerned that water may be
shifted over onto my property so therefore I hope the drainage
will be taken care of and also the grading of the property will
not shift the drainage over onto my property. Is there a
drainage study? Has that been done? The test wells that you have
drilled over there, you do have about 3 to 4 feet of sand.
However, from there on down is a solid layer of clay. That is
why the water table comes up on top of the ground in the wet
season. It will not drain down through that clay. Does the
contractor have a water study?
Mr. McCann: Before they can go ahead and get this plat approved, they would
have to do studies. They would have to go through the
Engineering Department of the City of Livonia. They would have
to verify that the drainage is proper, that any movement of the
soil would have to comply, and show it would be taken care of
before they could get plat approval. Is that correct H?
Mr. Shane: They will have an internal drainage system and the Engineering
Department will make sure your concern will be dealt with. They
will not allow whatever they do to create a drain on your
property. It will be internally drained and taken care of
through the Engineering Department and approval of the
engineering plans.
Mr. Potts: Those are my two points of concern, the drainage and the grade.
Carol Potts, 9551 Stark: I understand that you are looking at the lots that were
just north but south of Pinetree here that you said were less
than the proposed lots that are going to be put in the PL
section, but you must be aware that those three houses that are
in there, they are houses that have probably been there for 25
years. We have lived in our house since 1970 and most of the
homes have been there since we moved into our home that we
purchased ourselves. We are concerned about the water but we are
also concerned too that if you have a high concentration of 17
homes in such a small plot that it will look extremely crowded in
comparison to the rest of the area. For the rest of us it does
give a feeling of spaciousness. Yes there are a lot of homes up
and down Stark and in this particular area, but I see as the
years pass by as other people take over these homes they will be
expanding on them or they will take them dawn and build new
homes. I see this area eventually evolving where it will get
better and better. I really don't want to see homes that are
1200 square feet put into this section here.
Mr. Morrow: I have one question. Looking at the map here, to the Past
13901
there is a subdivision developed R-1. Do you feel that works a
hardship on the area to the RUF owners to the north and to the
south?
`4111. Ms. Potts: I know some of the neighbors who have lived in there over the
years, I have met with them. They are small starter homes for a
lot of young couples. I have been friends with young couples who
have moved in there over the years. It was not a concern to us
when we purchased the home when we did but we purchased it in
1970 and we only paid $29,000 for it. This is 1995 and our home
is assessed far more in excess of $29,000. We chose it because
it was a starter home for us also, but I think those homes are
probably worth more than they were when they were originally put
up. Unfortunately for the ones that will be on the school
property, they don't have a whole lot of room to improve on their
homes unless they go up a second story. They just don't have any
depth. They don't have any room to add on so if you are planning
on putting homes in on small lots, you are really essentially
saying that is the size home you are going to have to live in for
40 years because you aren't going to have any room to add on.
Mr. Morrow: But you feel they are co-existing fairly well with the north and
south property owner?
Ms. Potts: Yes I would say so at this time.
Alexander Hudy, 10269 Stark: This is north of this property on the west side of
the street. I am against the plan to rezone this area to R-1.
My first concern is that 17 houses would increase the traffic.
Nom. On my block of Stark on my side of the street there are only 23
houses. Seventeen houses is a large increase of the houses that
would be serviced by Stark Road. During the winter, since Stark
Road is a major plowed road, that would be a large increase in
cars. My greater concern though is that the R-1 zoning would
present an area where the houses are going to be on smaller lots,
especially those lots that abut Stark Road. Talking about the
house that you were just talking about on east on Richland. When
my wife and I started looking at houses in Livonia, we drove down
Richland because there was one house down that road that was for
sale in our price range and we went half way dawn the street and
we immediately noticed that the houses got on much smaller lots
and were much more crammed in, and living on Stark now, I don't
want to have someone driving down my street who is potentially
going to want to buy my lot later, get down to where these houses
are and say "Waw these houses are really crammed in. I don't
want to live on this street because it looks haphazardly planned.
It looks like someone all of a sudden decided to put some small
houses in where the other houses were much larger". My main
concern is the appearance of Stark Road be consistent throughout
that area. I am not opposed to houses being on the school
property. It would be an improvement to the area to have the
school gone but I think the zoning of R-1 is not good with the
13902
area. I would say a zoning of R-4, R-5 or RUF would be much more
in line with the rest of the area.
Joanna Davis, 9700 Laurel: My property will back up to where the homes are going
Nosy to be. Our lots there are 75'x 205'. My neighbor and I are very
upset about this because we built our homes there because we like
the open land and the homes spread far apart, which they are on
our side of Laurel. The homes there are all spacious and spread
apart. Seventeen homes behind us, we consider this looking at
Quonset huts. 1200 square foot homes, our homes are twice that
size. Our homes are only five years old so we are not in the
older section. There are three brand new homes there, and this
is why we bought there because of the openness. The kids play in
that park in the summer, and in the winter they take toboggans
and slide down it. It has been beautiful back there. I do agree
that the school does look terrible and something should be done
but I would rather see a church or something besides homes back
there, especially 17 of them.
Dave Dalfino, 10010 Stark Road: That is directly across from the current Stark
school. I have lived in the neighborhood for 14 years. At one
point I lived in the first house on the north side of Richland
that has been discussed with the R-1 zoning area. I lived in
that house for 7 years and we had 66 foot wide by 137 foot lot
and it was very small in keeping with the neighborhood. I too,
having lived on Richland for 7 years, I will have to say that
subdivision, although I lived there, certainly did not in any way
fit the neighborhood. If you drive dawn Richland from the 11
homes that are there towards Farmington you will find nothing
less than 1/2 acre, and the average is an acre and a half to two.
I currently, at this point, am on Stark Road and I have one acre.
I have that "L" shaped piece of land. First of all I want to say
we would love to see an improvement in the neighborhood with the
school being razed and something better being put there, but in
no way would I like to see 17 homes put there. I was born and
raised in the construction business and I understand what is
taking place here. I understand opportunity from all angles,
being a general contractor. Those of us that live in the area,
the majority is RUF. R-1, like I said I lived in that R-1
section for 7 years, it was not in keeping with the rest of the
neighborhood. As far as value of the homes in the area. I have
been there for 14 years and it has gone up astronomically. I
first purchased my home on Richland for $40,000 and sold it 7
years later for better than double that. Now the homes on
Richland are all $100,000 homes. Those little ranches are
$100,000. Up and down Stark Road behind the school there are
homes way over $200,000. The home directly next to mine is over
a $160,000 home. We are talking homes 1800, 2100, 2400 square
feet. These homes, 17, are not in keeping with this
neighborhood. Not even close. We would love to see some nice
homes in there. Maybe some homes similar to the ones built in a
subdivision south of Plymouth Road in the back of the cul-de-sac.
13903
Nice size lots, homes that are in keeping with those coming into
the neighborhood and have been coming into the neighborhood over
the last few years. In addition to the comments that were made
earlier about the field flooding. That field floods something
terrible and I feel sorry for the families that live south of
there for anything that is going to be done with the grades. It
would be nice to see some area of green land left in the
neighborhood. For years the school has been here. For years it
has been used by the community for softball, football, sledding.
We have to go all the way up to Shelden Center to fly a kite with
the kids, hit a ball, etc. if we want to have a community area.
It is something all of us will miss in the neighborhood. One of
my suggestions, in addition to being tremendously opposed to 17,
is that maybe something in the neighborhood of 10 but to have
some green area, some park area. After all it has been a school
plus a park for 50 years. It is like the neighborhood
playground. That area is so wet, up until we had this last
freeze you couldn't even walk across that field without it coming
up past your ankles. That is a serious problem that has to be
considered. We must keep 17 homes out of our area for the simple
reason there is nothing adjacent to it, save those few lots in
that tiny corner, which are by no means in keeping with the
majority of the area. They are little tiny postage stamps in
comparison to the rest. The rest of us have anywhere from 66 as
being very, very small by 160 foot frontage on Stark Road and
nearly 300 feet deep. I know I am certainly not out of the norm.
The size of the lots and the amount of density in that area is of
great concern.
'44111. Gordon Rooker, 10426 Stark: I too have some concerns about this being zoned in an
R-1 fashion. One, there are a lot of people that live on Stark
Road and we have children. We have a problem right now with
people that go from Plymouth Road dawn Stark to Edward Hines
Drive. In the early morning and in the late afternoon trying to
back out of my driveway is a chore because the traffic is so
heavy as it is now and that is a very major problem. Along with
the problem of the traffic that comes from the park, we get a lot
of speeders. I have children. My children ride bikes and play
along Stark. In the neighborhood towards Plymouth Road, in the
sub that was built dawn there, he rides his bike dawn Stark to go
there to play with the children. That has been a concern of
mine. I have even talked to some of the police officers that sit
on Stark and ticket people for going 45 m.p.h. in a 25 m.p.h.
zone. Another problem I have with this being zoned R-1, if you
put 17 homes in this area, which is not, as far as I am
concerned, large enough for 17 homes, and what I base that on is
I have been in the construction business for 20 years. I have
been in business for myself for 15 years and I can tell you that
17 homes in that area, they are going to be small and they are
going to be stacked upon one another. I have built enough homes
to know. Another problem we have dawn there is the grading
affect. During our rainy season in the spring that floods out
13904
down there. They have some horses down there towards the end of
the lots and they get a lot of flooding as it is. When you look
at where the school is located to the lowest point from where the
gray area is down to the far corner, there is probably at least a
10 foot drop. They are going to grade that out but how is it
going to affect the other residents that live in that area?
Another concern of mine is the traffic influx. If you are going
to have 17 homes built in there, you are going to have 17 more
cars coming down there plus maybe a couple of extra if both
people work so you are definitely going to increase the traffic,
which is already a problem to us residents right now being that
is the main shortcut dawn to Edward Hines Drive. The gentleman
over here alluded to the fact that he couldn't think of anything
better than to put in 17 homes there. As Dave Dalfino said
earlier, our children have played there for years. It has been
kind of our park, a place to go throw a frisbee, take your dog
dawn and play ball with, etc. One idea off the top of my head,
if it was a park with swings and stuff for the kids and children
in the area, that is a better idea than 17 homes as far as I am
concerned. I am not opposed to taking this school down. It is
an eyesore and I am not opposed to that. I am not opposed to
that if it is zoned RUF or R-2 and putting 10 homes in there.
You could put 10 homes in there that would be in keeping with the
homes in the general area and not affect our property values and
not be a tremendous burden upon the traffic in the area. If you
put 17 homes in there, you are talking a whole different
ball game. You are talking oranges and apples. I would just
like the council to know that my concern basically rides on the
fact I don't want 17 homes put in there. I am not opposed to
`r. zoning that in an R-2 fashion and maybe putting 10 homes in there
or even going farther and looking for different ideas for that
property that could be a benefit to the City of Livonia and the
residents in the area.
Terry Cadovich, 9536 Laurel: In reference to the whole problem there have been
many things said. I am south of that property. My property
floods next to Carol Potts. I sit in the back 60 foot of my
property which is 100'x300'. Four months of the year I cannot
have access to the back of my property. You are talking about
grading this out. That property parallel to the school now, the
10 feet just north of that fence is swamp land 9 months of the
year. I don't know what the proposal is. That statement that
you made that it is all sand, I had to elevate my basement due to
the fact that I hit a clay base at 5 1/2 feet, solid clay that
water runs inside and outside. I have flooded once already in my
basement. I put an extra $4,000 in the basement, 4 inches of
pea gravel, inside and outside drains and I still have a drainage
problem. Contrary to what that gentleman said there is no
problem with sand, that whole area is sitting on clay. I am not
opposed to building homes in the area. I am kind of upset about
the fact that I bought the property 15 years ago with the
intention of keeping the rural area. I like the atmosphere. It
13905
is peaceful back there. If you want to build homes, I don't see
any objection to that. Let's just conform to the balance of the
area that is presently in that area south of that excluding the
area on Richland. When I purchased the property it was gravel
road, they were all 100 foot lots. There are some deficient lots
across the street. There is one house specifically that is on a
45' x 120'lot. That is because it was sold afterwards and there
is a real small house on that. That is my major concern. Like I
say, I am not opposed to any additional building in Livonia. I
think it is a great idea. There have been plans for senior
citizens housing and I believe there has been a company that
approached the City in reference to turning that into a day care
center and someone refused that. Also in reference to the fact
you said it is very costly to remove toxic waste or asbestos, you
should contact a company called Beckert Oil. They have a product
out now that sprays on asbestos and literally peels off. It is
not harmful or toxic, and it is very, very cost effective.
William Taylor, 9487 Stark: That is just south of the school. I have a problem
with the drainage also. Not as bad as the others but I am
worried about it. Part of the reason I moved into this area was
for the scenery. I am probably one of the few here that played
on that when I was a kid. My kids play there now. The thought of
having 17 houses, that is like putting 4 more houses in my
backyard. There is just not room for it. I am not opposed to
having houses but can't we do something like 10 to 12. That is
all I have to say about it. I am worried about the drainage
because you do hit the clay once you get down about 4 1/2 to 5
a.. feet. Any of us that have lived there, we can tell you that.
`. That is all I have to say about it.
Mark Maloziec, 9491 Stark: That is just south of the school. This summer I
contacted the City about modernizing my house, and I had a patio
installed on the back of my house. We dug down two feet and hit
water and the building inspector said that wasn't unusual in the
area. My big concern would be by grading this down, Mr.
Cadovich, myself and Willie are going to get flooded out. I like
to garden in the summertime. I have a garden there. If we have
a heavy rain I have to garden in a raw boat. That is my main
concern. I don't mind if you want to take the school down and
put up a park for the kids. I would be more than happy to
support you on that.
Mary Horgan, 10195 Stark: We have two lots in that area. We have the lot at 10011
Stark Road, which is straight across from the school, and I am
opposed to all those houses being built where Stark School is
now. I have no objection to maybe 8 to 10 homes there but not
17. We have a traffic problem on Stark. Four o'clock in the
evening you can't leave your driveway. You have to wait there
for at least five to ten minutes to get out of your driveway.
The lot at 10195 Stark Road is 66'x 360' and the lot at 10011
Stark Road is 106'x 246' so the only complaint I have is with
traffic and I don't want a rural area turned into a subdivision.
13906
Bill Cohan, 34760 Pinetree: Traffic, has there been a study done on traffic in
there?
Mr. McCann: I am not aware of a study yet. H, are you aware of a study?
Mr. Shane: There has been no study.
Mr. Cohan: On the west corner of that public land, that is a bus stop, and
in the morning peak hours, it is dangerous, especially in the
morning with this freezing rain. The kids were almost run down
out there. I know. I try to stop there at the corner and it is
pretty slick. In the afternoon rush hours from Laurel to Wayne
Road on Pinetree it is bumper to bumper traffic. There are times
when you have to wait at that stop sign on Laurel to head west
for clearance for one vehicle so you can proceed and take your
place in line waiting for left hand turns onto Wayne Road from
Pinetree. Public lands, as a kid I played at Stark School.
Everybody did. We played baseball there. The community needs a
park. There is not a swing set within a mile radius of that
public land. We all know that to get to Shelden Center you must
cross a major surface road. We need a park and swing sets in the
area not 17 homes. Again, the school is an eyesore but 17 homes
will be even more of an eyesore. The wetlands. If anybody parks
down here on Hines Drive by the foot of that bridge that crosses
over Hines Drive, if you park down there and get out of your
vehicle and look up Plymouth Road, you can see the grade incline.
Believe me it is terrible. When you get to the school you can
see where the land drops 10 feet, slopes out and retains water
there. A vehicle last year, a young man thought he was being
`rr. very clever on Friday night, got caught Saturday morning when his
vehicle got stuck up to its frame. Overall, our major concern in
the neighborhood is not only in the size of the lots, but the
traffic flow. There are a lot of children in the area and pets.
You can't always guarantee your pet will leave the yard but I can
guarantee you one thing, there is a good chance of him getting
run over. It is tremendous. I would like to have a traffic
study in the area. I am sure that would help rectify some of
your decisions. Seventeen homes, 34 vehicles, on an average two
vehicles per home. If we cut it down to 10 homes or 8 homes then
you are in the neighborhood of 16 vehicles. Again, I would like
to see $150,000 homes in value.
Don Komos, 9552 Stark: I am here representing my wife as well. She can't be here.
We have been here for 20 years. With respect to a study, I
conducted my own study regarding the traffic because the Livonia
police will not do anything because they say they have higher
priorities. At 7:30 I took my car at the beginning of Hines and
Stark Road, complying with the 25 m.p.h. speed limit, proceeded
to Plymouth Road at the same rate. There is a double yellow line
there and I had been passed several times just by experimenting
myself. I went from 7:30 in the morning up and down Stark Road,
and the people coming from Westland or wherever they are coming
yr..
13907
from to go to work here were passing me up on a double yellow
line. That has occurred and I just want to make reference to a
study that drnsn't exist but unofficially I have conducted my own
*Jr study. With respect to the residential plan. I feel when you
say residential zone, you are saying those homes, in my opinion,
are going to be the same configuration. Is that right?
Mr. McCann: Ranches, colonials, I believe.
Mr. Komos: When I came here to Stark I enjoyed the diversity of the
different homes that were already there. I would hate to see any
new development there as far as that goes. With respect to the
playing area, although my wife and I don't have kids, we feel for
our neighbors the dangers and particularly without any place to
play, it is certainly dangerous to play from what I can see in
Hines Park. It is actually turning into a danger land out there
for kids. I don't see them playing out there. This is a nice
place for the kids to play, an area like that. As for the
building itself, I can only suggest a church, but I am totally
against the proposal because we will be facing it and looking at
it. The reason I built my house in the beginning was to see that
kind of spaciousness and the beautiful diversity of homes there
and the spacious lots. 'Ib propose this to increase the tax base
to me is ridiculous. I think Livonia is built out and people are
moving out and I think it is time to preserve what we have.
William Bowman, 34334 Orangelawn: I live on the north corner of Orangelawn and
Stark. I have two small sons, and there are no sidewalks in that
area, and they have no place to play. I am opposed to putting 17
more houses in there, 13 built by a construction company, and
then how long will it take the school project to complete the
four other homes in there. You are going to have 13 complete
houses and you are going to have four that will be built as
project homes. I moved out of subdivision just like the one that
is on Richland to the house that we have on Orangelawn right now
because basically that street was a country road in the city and
17 more homes with all that traffic, and Stark Road is in
terrible shape right now as it is. I would like to see that road
fixed before they have any kind of construction in that area. I
have lived there for two years now and myself I have seen the
flooding that goes on in the south end of that school lot. I am
opposed to putting 17 houses in there. I would like to see it
used as a park. My kids love to go play and they always want me
to take them up to Shelden Park. They can't cross Farmington
Road, one is six and one is nine, and I would like to see some
kind of park built on that area for everyone to use. Not just
for my kids but for everyone to use.
Kevin McCarthy, 34232 Orangelawn: That is one house off Stark Road. I stand
opposed to the R-1 zoning. I think the best use of that land is
as a school. I don't know what the cost would be to remove the
asbestos and remodel the existing building to be used as a school
13908
but I think the demographics of the community, at least in this
area, show a lot of people have prc-school age children. We are
getting to a point where the schools are going to be growing
again, where they have been downsizing recently I understand.
There are a lot more young children getting ready to enter school
and I would like to see it used as a school. If not a school,
maybe a park. I know economic circumstances probably dictate
that it should be used as a residential area, and I would like to
see it zoned RUF or R-2. My concerns are also traffic and I
don't think the R-1 zoning on Richland fits in with the area but
that was done many, many years ago, but just because you make one
mistake doesn't mean you have to make another one right next to
it. A lot of the houses in the R-1 on Richland are very nice
because the people that moved in there take care of their homes
and they are nice homes. I just don't think the lots are big
enough. That is why I bought my house.
Jon Mynarzy, 10633 Stark Road: I have lived there approximately two years. What
attracted myself and my wife to that area was the size of the
lots, the uniqueness of the homes. Those of you that live on
Stark are familiar with the shopping complex where the Coney
Island is. There are two new homes that have been there
approximately five years. 'Ilan years ago when my wife and I were
looking for a home, the second home was up for sale for
approximately $138,000. If you look at that multi-listing today,
that home is still for sale for $110,000. It is not selling
because the lot is so small.
Mr. McCann: Sir, you have already spoken tonight. I will restrict you to
additional new information.
Gentleman front Audience: The only thing I wanted to point out it seems a lot of my
neighbors didn't get a copy of what I got. I went up to the
third floor and got a listing. R-2 lots are only 10 foot wider
than R-1 lots. I think a lot of people think an R-2 lot is much
larger than that. If any of my neighbors want to go to the third
floor of this building, they will give you a list. R-4 lots are
listed as 90'x130'. I think that is more of what we are looking
for. R-2 is only 10 foot wider.
Bill Zirblis, 34500 Pinetree: There is a terrific problem on Pinetree. I heard
most of the problems being on Stark Road but living on Pinetree,
it is a cut-thru street. The truckers and city workers,
everybody goes through. The traffic just doesn't stop. I would
highly recommend that a traffic study be included in any plans
that you make.
Mr. McCann: I am going to allow the petitioner to respond and then I am going
to close the public hearing.
Mr. Roskelly: I have heard some eloquent comments. Some I agree with. Some I
don't. I would like the record set straight. I indicated
13909
that I personally was there when we dug six test holes ten foot
deep. At one test hole we hit clay at 9 feet. We did not know
why. Not in any way implying that nobody was untrue but on that
specific site it is all sand. That is basically clear, good
sand. The other item as far as drainage, water, etc. , this is a
land use meeting tonight but certainly I can assure, and we are
all aware of the fact, that number one I did enough
investigation. I certainly realize under no circumstances can any
storm water be shed off on any adjoining property, which is
certainly one of your engineering criteria. I also believe that
I made the comment that a large percentage of the houses were
somewhat less house than what we are going to build, and I still
maintain that in excess of 60% of those houses would not match
the houses that we are going to build. I hear stacked homes. I
take exception to the comment that I build stacked homes. R-1
zoning is not a stacked home concept. It is a parcel of land
that is more than adequate for a home that I certainly have built
in the City and my reputation proceeds me and I do not build
stack homes. I am very proud of what I build and I would like
the opportunity to proceed in this area. One more comment on
traffic. Somebody mentioned that perhaps you should leave it a
school or perhaps a church. I submit that when this was an open
school more traffic was generated by the teachers and students
than will be generated by 17 homes. I can't believe 17 homes are
going to cause a traffic jam.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Roskelly, you heard the cry for larger lots here tonight. At
what point is it you just can't afford to continue on with your
,` development?
Mr. Roskelly: I will be completely honest. The agreement we have with the
Livonia Schools is that it becomes null and void if we do not get
approval for R-1 or R-2, R-2 being 70'x120'. If it is not R-1 or
R-2, certainly this project would be abandoned as far as Camborne
Construction would be concerned.
Mr. Alanskas: I want to, for the neighbors in the audience, on that
subdivision that is R-1 there are 18 homes on that subdivision
and the first lot on the corner is 80 feet wide. That is Lot 17.
Lot 16 is 67 feet wide. The next eight parcels are 60'x173' so
they all exceed R-1. R-1 is 120 so they are not cramped in that
subdivision. This would only be 17 homes.
Mr. LaPine: Listening to the residents this evening I know we would all like
that to be a park but that is something you might as well get out
of your mind. Number one, the property is owned by the Livonia
Schools. The only way that could become a park is the school
would have to donate the land to the City but that is not going
to happen. They have an investment in there that the taxpayers
paid for. Consequently they want to sell the property to
generate some revenue to help with the cost of the education of
our children. The City does not have the money to buy the land,
13910
tear down the building and make it a park so that scenario is not
going to happen. The only thing we have left, you have a number
of choices. There are other things that could go in there,
nursing home, and there are other things. In my honest opinion
the best thing for it is homes because the way schools are built
in Livonia, they are basically in residential areas surrounded by
homes. The only thing we could do and do justice to the
residents in that area is to do homes. I don't agree with Mr.
Roskelly that we can't put larger lots in there. I have been
here 40 years and I bought a home for $15,000 when I first moved
into the City and I live up at the north end, which is a lot more
expensive homes than the $15,000 home I bought. I have never
seen a subdivision in this City that whether the homes are sold
for $15,000 or $250,000, that haven't sold well, so I don't think
his argument that he can't sell homes up in that area for
$150,000 or $175,000 holds any water. When I look at this map
that was given to us tonight that shows all the different zonings
in the area, there are two houses that are on less than R-1,
which is 60 foot widths. There are 32 houses that comply with
the R-1 district, which is 60 foot lots. There are three in the
R-2 district, which is 70 foot lots. There are five in the R-3
classification, which are 80 foot lots, and there is an R-4 and
an R-5. The over abundance of lots in this area are RUF lots. I
don't think it reasonable to ask this gentleman to develop those
lots as RUF lots, 1/2 acre lots, but I don't think it is
unreasonable to ask him to build them on 80 foot lots, which is
an R-3. I don't think that is unreasonable. I think the area
warrants it. I think the area will support it. I think the
homes can be sold at that price. Therefore, if Mr. Roskelly
feels he can't do that, he is not the only developer who might be
interested in buying this land. Maybe some other developer would
like to buy this land and put in 80 foot lots. I personally
think the area warrants the larger lots and I can't support it in
the R-1 district.
Mr. Piercecchi: How many 80 foot or 70 foot lots are potential for that area sir?
Mr. Roskelly: The only other area that we would consider is 70 and I think it
is three lots, which would be 14 lots. Let the record show that
Mr. LaPine indicated 80s. My petition was for R-1 but I would
concede to R-2 but I would not honor any recommendation other
than R-1 or R-2.
Mr. Alanskas: So you are saying if it was R-2 you would be putting in 14
instead of 17 homes?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: Are you voluntarily amending your petition this evening to change
it to R-2 and requesting approval? We have R-1 before us.
Mr. Roskelly: I am also aware of the fact by virtue of my petition asking for
13911
one, I believe I would have the opportunity to tell you at this
time that I would certainly accept an R-2 consideration with your
approval but not an R-3 or anything higher.
'tom.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-1-1 closed.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to table this for two weeks so we can get a better
idea of haw many lots you could get with R-2 and what they would
look like and the size of them.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#2-29-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-1-1 by
William L. Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on the west
side of Stark Road, between Pinetree Avenue and Edward Hines Drive in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from PL to R-1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-1-1-1 until
March 14, 1995
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: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow
"%N. NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-4
by Krishman C. Janveja, Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use
approval to construct a new enclosed garden shop area and to expand
the existing outdoor garden shop area for the Kmart store located on
the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn
Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire
Marshal's office stating their departments have no objections to
this petition. We have also received a letter from the
Inspection Department stating the proposed 4560 sq. ft. enclosed
garden area addition is in compliance with all C-2 district
regulations. Construction of the garden addition will cause a
13912
loss of 20 existing parking spaces and generate a requirement for
7 additional spaces. Proposed signage for this petition will
require a variance from the Zoning Board of appeals for the
excss number of signs and the non-conforming pylon sign.
We have also received a letter from Richard George who states he
is the owner of the property at 30303 and 30313 Plymouth Road.
His property is directly in front of K-Mart. He feels this would
be a good use for this property and an enhancement to the City.
It is zoned properly and is hidden from the road. Please approve
this expansion.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Krishman Janveja: I work for Kmart Corporation. I am the Civil Engineer on the
project.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us basically what the intent and purpose of this
expansion is for?
Mr. Janveja: The purpose is to expand the existing garden shop and also add an
enclosed garden shop, which will be 40 feet by 115 feet, and also
remove the old signs for some new signs, and also create some new
island in the front of the garden shop.
Mr. Morrow: The store to the west, as I understand it, is vacant. It seems
to me somewhere we were told that was going to be opened up and
expanded by Kmart.
Mr. Janveja: Yes that is inside the store.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted that for the record. That portion that is now
vacant will now become retail space for Kmart?
Mr. Janveja: It will become retail space.
Mr. Alanskas: In your garden shop will there ever be a time when you will have
merchandise stacked over the height of the fence where you can
see it from the parking lot?
Mr. Janveja: No.
Mr. Alanskas: Will you ever attempt to sell flowers or any materials out on the
sidewalk in front of the store?
Mr. Janveja: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Why?
Mr. Janveja: We have been doing it for quite a few years and we would like to
keep on doing it.
13913
Mr. Alanskas: Do you realize when you do that you are taking away walking
space?
Mr. Janveja: No it stays in the covered area.
Mr. Alanskas: It is still space used for walking. How wide are your carts that
you have the flowers on? How far do they stick out?
Mr. Janveja: They will not stick out outside of the covered area.
Mr. Alanskas: Why can't you leave them in the garden shop?
Mr. Janveja: It is more attractive to sell the merchandise outdoors in the
summertime.
.
Mr. Alanskas: But that doesn't mean it is right.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Alanskas, Kmart came before us regarding outside storage of
plants in the springtime and it was approved. I believe they
have a variance for a certain period.
Mr. Shane: They have a waiver use which was approved to limit them to a
certain area in front of the store on the sidewalk and it is
limited to probably May 1st to October 1.
Mr. Alanskas: I rescind that question.
Mr. LaPine: I think Mr. Alanskas has brought up a good point though. We are
New now expanding the garden shop and we are enclosing it. If we are
doing that we are expanding it, then I don't see any reason to
allow them to continue the waiver use we gave them for the
outside storage and selling of plants when we could have all of
that on the inside. What is the idea of expanding your base if
you can't get rid of the stuff that you have been storing
outside? I would feel that by enclosing it you are trying to
keep everything on the inside.
Mr. Janveja: We are just enclosing a very small area. In the summertime it
draws a lot of sales.
Mr. LaPine: On the outside are you going to have peat moss stored out there?
Mr. Janveja: No. On the outside it would be basically flowers and those kind
of things.
Mrs. Blomberg: I am gathering from what I am hearing is basically the flowers in
front are sort of an impulse thing. People go in and they pass
the flowers and they pick up some flowers and maybe that is why
they are outside. Is that correct?
Mr. Janveja: That is true.
13914
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal.
`„ Michael Polsinelli, 26913 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield: I had seen a preliminary
plan that Kmart had submitted with respect to this. I don't see
one this evening. I would like to say we are in favor of and
support this expansion. However, there was one item on the plan
that I am not sure was ever resolved or is known to this board,
and that is part of the proposal reflects relocating the drive
that currently runs east and west in front of the Kmart building
further to the north and it aligns with that drive that runs to
the north of Target. However, as part of their proposal they are
installing some additional landscape islands. Those are on our
property, and I would just like this board to know that while we
support the proposal and we support the new islands, we would
grant permission for Kmart to construct those, but I think if you
see fit to approve this proposal this evening you should
condition it that they do need to come to us to get that
permission if they do put those islands where they are showing
them on the drawing. I think it is an asset to the whole
property but I just want Kmart to know they should come to us for
that permission.
Mr. TaPine: H, it was my understanding from the study meeting that they are
renovating the whole outside of this building.
Mr. Shane: Yes they are.
Mr. TaPine: Have they submitted a site plan?
Mr. Shane: Yes they have.
Mr. Nowak presented the site plan.
Mr. Morrow: The islands that Mr. Polsinelli made reference to, are they shown
on that drawing?
Mr. Nowak: Yes, it straddles the property line.
Mr. Morrow: It is on their plan so they need approval from Schostak to get
those installed?
Mr. Nowak: That is right.
Mr. Nowak presented the building elevations.
Mr. TaPine: That encompasses both the old store and the furniture store
combined. Is that correct?
Mr. Nowak: Correct.
13915
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-30-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-4 by
Krishman C. Janveja, Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use approval
to construct a new enclosed garden shop area and to expand the
existing outdoor garden shop area for the Kmart store located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-2-4 be
approved subject to a variance being granted with regard to deficient
off-street parking by the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the following
additional conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 dated 11-2-94 prepared by J.
R. Hill, P.E. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-5 dated 12-12-94
prepared by B. W. Glasser, Architect (not including proposed
signage) which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That K-Mart shall secure approval from the Wonderland Mall to
make the adjustments in the landscape islands.
Nifty 4) That at no time shall Kmart stack any materials above the height
of the walls so it may be seen by the public.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as 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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13916
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-5
by Eastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor
patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side
of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have
also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
they have no objections to this proposal. lastly, we have
received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the
proposed outdoor patio dining area will increase the parking
requirement for this site by 24 parking spaces. The total
parking requirement for this site would be 152 parking spaces,
with only 142 spaces provided. This proposal will require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the deficient 10
parking spaces.
Mr. Nowak presented the site plan.
Mr. McCann: Without the outdoor seating, we are currently short how many
parking spots?
Mr. Nowak: They have sufficient right now.
`,, Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Norman LePage, 3950 Maple Hill West, West Bloomfield: I am the owner of Eastside
Mario's. I am going to start out and then I will introduce Ray
Lance, Director of Operations for the restaurants. He can give
you the specifics about the addition. I wanted to point out to
you first of all if you have been to Eastside Mario's or have
passed it, I am sure you have noticed that there is already an
existing greenbelt area in that patio area and we did that out of
no disrespect for the City of Livonia or for any of the
commissions or Planning Commission. We designed that in such a
way that we put brick pavers there that would enable us to change
that or convert those parking spaces if the City, in its wisdom,
decided to not grant our petition for the patio. The other
reason we did that we knew we would be petitioning at this time
of the year and one of the things we were very concerned about is
in the potential scenario where the City would approve us, we
would then be faced with a construction situation right at the
entrance of the restaurant. I think most of you probably know
there is a good amount of traffic coming and going at Eastside
Mario's. We are serving between 6,000 to 7,000 meals a week.
While it is a manageable situation, I felt creating a
construction area in that area during the spring would be a
hazardous situation. In addition, we take a great deal of pride
13917
in the appearance of the property as well as the maintenance of
the property, and one of the things we were concerned about was
being able to seal coat our parking lot in the early spring as
lo, soon as the weather breaks. We did it in the early fall but
unfortunately it got washed out right after we did it so we have
to redo that in the spring. Again, I want to reinforce the fact
that there was no disrespect intended, and we would like then to
describe to you what our exact petition is.
Ray Lance, Director of Operations: I think the main point requesting the waiver
use approval, we have operated restaurants for many years and
found out traditionally in the summertime the business drops off,
and Norm has worked with patios in various restaurants that we
have. We currently have two restaurants that have patios and it
has proven true, including the Eastside Mario's in Rochester
Hills, it has proven true to keep our business consistent through
those slow times. I think it is definitely a stability issue for
us. As everyone probably knows we made a pretty sizable
investment into that property. The other thing, it is part of
the Eastside Mario's concept. Every Fastside Mario's across the
country has a patio. We have not found, especially at the
Rochester Hills location, any additional issues with parking
because of the patio. I think it definitely enhances the image.
I also think it also falls in line with what we are trying to do
with developing Plymouth Road. I think it sends a good message
and I think it looks nice. One thing we found also dealing with
patios through the years, in the summertime it becomes a trade
out to where people, instead of sitting inside, they chose to sit
Nor outside and there are many times during the summer when we have
our inside stations closed and our patio full. It is a good
trade out. The other thing too, and I know all of you are aware
of our opening and the incredible amount of traffic that came out
of our parking lot. Traditionally as we go along here, it is a
normal restaurant trend, the national restaurant average is a
23-28% drop in restaurant traffic throughout the first year. We
call that our honeymoon period. It starts on about the sixth
month. Over at Rochester Hills we also experienced that. We saw
a 20% drop in business after our initial opening month. I think
we will see that happening here also. We need to expect it. We
need to plan for it. I think that is real important for us to
continue our success in that building. The other point I want to
make, this is another issue, many times in a restaurant not every
seat is full. There are a lot of times you will have four seats
at a table and there are only two people sitting there. It is
very hard to fill up every single seat in a restaurant. I think
that should also be taken into consideration. I also at times,
Friday and Saturday nights, understand the parking situation. If
you walk out into the parking lot at eight or nine o'clock, at
our peak time, I have always been able to find 10 to 15 spots
that are still open. One final thing I would like to say about
this, this would be a seasonable thing. We are talking about
maybe the first of May, if we are lucky, throughout the summer,
13918
and then usually in September it is over. We are talking about a
3 - 3 1/2 month situation with the patio open. The final thing
is I think we have a unique situation that a lot of restaurants
don't get to enjoy. We have an incredible amount of parking
around us. One thing I did not submit when I made the original
submission, I do have a signed agreement with the doctors
allowing us to utilize their parking lot. I have that with me
tonight. They have no objection to us using their lot. Between
all the different places around us, the City lot across the
street has 28 spaces. When we develop the City lot there are an
additional 18 spots. A. J. Foley has given us 16 parking slots
which we can use beside us. The antique shop also closes early
ordinarily on weekdays at 5:00 p.m. They chose to stay open
later now so there are another 12 spots there. I think the
situation warrants itself and the parking we have it here. It
just doesn't show it fits the code. If you have any questions, I
would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Morrow: During this honeymoon period that you make reference to, do you
see a need to spill over into the commercial areas that have
given you permission to use their spots after hours?
Mr. Lance: At times. There are different days of the year when you have
special events like Valentine's day or something like that. We
have to utilize those spaces then.
Mr. Morrow: But there is still space in the back? They just use that because
it is more convenient?
,4111.0
Mr. Lance: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: In other words you were not completely full which caused the
overflow. They just parked there because it was more convenient?
Mr. Lance: That could be a correct assumption.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to parking, even though you do have a letter for the
doctor's office after 7:00 p.m. , what about in the daytime when
people can't go in there because your customers are parking in
their lot?
Mr. LePage: The doctors pointed that out to us very early in the game. While
we wanted to wait until the spring to accomplish what we needed
to accomplish to relieve their situation, it was an untenable
situation because their patients weren't able to get into the
lot, so we paid to have signs put into the ground indicating that
any people that would park in those spots prior to seven o'clock
in the evening would be towed away, and the other day for
example, Friday which is a real strong lunch hour for us, I
pulled into the lot and they had seven empty spots during lunch
hour and our lot was very full. Plus we also paid to put a
larger sign right at the entrance of their lot indicating the
same information. Since we have put those signs in there, it has
not been a problem.
13919
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask, I have been to your place various times at
various hours, and even if you say you have the parking, you
don't because that parking there is a mess. I think it is just
an act of God that there has not been an accident around your
`„ facility because you just don't have enough parking. You have so
much business there. People can't park anywhere and now you want
to have another x number of spaces in the summertime. I would
think in the summertime, because the whether is so much nicer,
you would have more people coming to your business than you do in
the wintertime.
Mr. LePage: That is not the way it works in the restaurant business.
Traditionally, in fact all of my restaurants, the business goes
dawn during the summer months. People find other things to do in
the summer and this is one of the ways to encourage them to come
back to your restaurant so your business doesn't fall off. This
would provide a situation where they would have the opportunity
for some outdoor dining. I understand what you are saying with
regard to the parking. As a matter of fact, before I came over
tonight I went over to the restaurant and the restaurant was
fairly full, and I counted the empty parking spots and there were
15 empty parking spots in the lot and we haven't really developed
the City lot yet, which we just today signed an agreement on,
which will afford us another 15 spaces. I agree with what you
are saying. It has been, on occasion, a difficult situation. I
think that is leveling out now. In fact, I know it is leveling
out. There is no question the traffic is cut back considerably
since our opening. I think if you took the time to drive the lot
maybe two or three times over the next week or so, you probably
Nies. would agree with me.
Mr. Alanskas: Even though your business slacks off in the summertime, like you
say in the summertime it is nicer and you will have more traffic
going up and dawn Plymouth Road, which will make that still a
very serious problem. To give you more seating, gives us more of
a parking problem. I think you will just add to the problem by
asking for more seating.
Mr. LePage: Again, what I would like to point out is our experience is, and
this holds true because I have eight to ten restaurants with
outdoor dining, so our experience is what is happening is instead
of seating inside, people will chose to sit outside. Very often
what you are going to find is you will go into the restaurant
during the summer months and you will see perhaps two or three
stations closed and the patio will be open because of the
opportunity to sit outside. That is 22 years of experience.
Mr. LaPine: You are now providing 142 spaces on your property. Is that
correct?
Mr. Lance: We will have 142 when we fully develop the City lot.
Mr. TaPine: You show on your plan you have total parking provided 142 spots
13920
but at this time you don't have 142 spots because that is less
the 15 spots on the City leased land.
_r. Mr. LePage: We haven't paved that yet.
Mr. LaPine: I understand that. What I am trying to ascertain here is how
many parking spots are you providing naw?
Mr. LePage: 128 spots.
Mr. LaPine: So you have 128 spots there right now. Then you are going to
pick up an additional 15 spots from the City-owned lot once it is
paved. That will give you 143 spots. Then after five o'clock
you have permission to use 16 spaces at the A. J. Foley Company.
Is that correct?
Mr. LePage: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: So that is another 16 spots you have there. The doctor has given
you permission to use 12 spaces on his property after seven
o'clock. In reality you have 171 spots. I just want to get that
clear in my mind.
Mr. LePage: And that don't include the City lot across the street.
Mr. Piercecchi: Has any consideration been given to the landscaping? I notice
here on the write up by our Planning staff that you currently
have approximately 8% as opposed to the required 15%. Are there
any plans in the mill with regard to meet that requirement?
Now
Mr. Lance: We were thinking that we were correct in our landscaping with the
patio.
Mr. Piercecchi: It says here "The area devoted to landscaping on the site plan,
which include the perimeter landscaping bordering the patio area
and the proposed relocation of two existing landscape areas in
the northeasterly portion of the site, equals approximately 8% of
the total site area as opposed to the required 15%".
Mr. Lance: You are talking about the City lot then?
Mr. Piercecchi: I am talking about 15% landscaping.
Mr. Lance: The plans were to remove the existing beds in the northeast
corner and move them into the corner of the City lot. We would
be willing to do whatever we needed to do to make sure that was
correct. I apologize I wasn't aware that we did not have that
covered.
Mr. Shane: It should be pointed out that in the original approval of Mario's
site plan they were deficient by approximately 8 to 10% at that
time so they are not any more deficient than they were when they
13921
were originally approved. We pointed out in the notes that there
was a deficiency but there has always been a deficiency from the
beginning when they were approved for the original site plan.
Sm. What I am saying is they haven't gotten any better but they
haven't gotten any worse either.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any way they could meet that requirement of 15%?
Mr. Shane: Not unless they removed some parking spaces.
Mr. LePage: We did take the existing landscaped areas and improved all of
those. We put new shrubs in all of those areas. We went to
great lengths to improve that. Of course, in the spring there
will be fresh flowers. I am sure you will be very pleased by
what you will see.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think your patio idea is an excellent idea.
Mr. Morrow: H, does the 8% take into account the greenbelt area in the
right-of-way?
Mr. Shane: I was just going to make that point. That does not take in the
area within the City right-of-way. If you added that in, it
would probably make up the additional 7% or so.
Mr. Morrow: The greenbelt around the patio area?
Mr. Shane: It takes into consideration the patio area. It does not consider
\.. the area in front of the building, which is all City
right-of-way. From a technical standpoint that is not countable
in the 15%.
Mr. Morrow: But you get the same affect?
Mr. Shane: Yes you get the same affect.
Mr. LaPine: The property the City owns that has now been apparently leased to
Mario's, is that lease exclusively for you? Nobody else can use
that parking but you?
Mr. LePage: The lease is for the use of our customers. That is written in
the agreement.
Mr. LaPine: H, you mentioned the old Livonia Tire Company, which is going to
either be renovated or torn down. If, and when, that comes to
pass, they do not have enough parking there to accommodate that
building. Is that correct?
Mr. Shane: That is right.
Mr. rapine: Where is their parking going to come from?
13922
Mr. Shane: Unfortunately the owners of the tire store created a situation.
They used to own the property next to them on the east as well as
the property the tire store is on, in which case they had ample
property to construct a new building or to use the old one. The
`ow idea was that the City-owned property, which these folks now have
a lease agreement on, could provide parking for the renovated old
tire store building or a new building on the site. I think that
is a reason the lease agreement states a time period. I think it
is a five-year time period with a five year renewal. I think the
idea of that was if within five years if there is a use for the
tire store, the City might take a different position on leasing
that City property to Mario's. I think that is the reason for
the short time period.
Mr. Iapine: Are you saying that in the next five years when Mario's has a
lease on that property, that property can't be developed?
Mr. Shane: Probably not because they simply wouldn't have enough parking.
It is so small. In fact, the building takes up the entire site.
From a practical standpoint, all by itself, it wouldn't be able
to be developed unless they could obtain parking someplace else.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would you revisit that area? You said you had 16 spaces also
that you could use and you were going to let your employees
utilize that area.
Mr. Lance: The letter from A. J. Foley, he lets us use it any time during
the day as it stag in the letter, and we can have our employccs
park there if necessary.
Mr. Piercecchi: But that use can be given or taken away.
Mr. Lance: Yes it could be.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to seek some kind of permanent agreement?
Mr. Lance: I think he is happy that we are there. We draw a lot of
traffic to the area. I think we have supported all the
businesses around us. I don't feel it would become an issue for
us as far as him saying you can't do this anymore.
Mr. Alanskas: The rendering you show there, is that exactly how the patio will
look?
Mr. LePage: One thing we didn't do is show the wrought iron fence, which
would go inside the trccs.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I asked is you just passed out a picture of your
restaurant and you show a bunch of dangling lights around the
patio area.
Mr. LePage: That is a different restaurant. We will not have that here.
Mr. McCann: Your originally came because you had 170 seating capacity?
13923
Mr. Shane: They had the capacity to go to 201. That is what was approved
for Mario's.
Mr. McCann: It currently has 201 but isn't it true that the Planning
Commission denied their request because they only had 170 seating
and they wanted to expand it and the Planning Commission felt
they had sufficient seating alluding to the number of restaurants
in the area and denied the petition to expand it at that time,
and here we are again expanding the existing use by another 48
seats. Is that correct?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. McCann: The traffic pattern coming in and out of your restaurant is
difficult at this time and that is one of the things I really
wasn't sure why when I went there at one time you got rid of all
the parking in front of the building. When you try to drive in
it appears the driveway on the other side is for the doctors'
offices and not your use, and to try to get two cars coming and
going between the building and your seating capacity there is
extremely difficult. Don't you believe that by bringing that out
you are creating more of a problem for your flow of traffic?
Mr. LePage: Actually that was there before. It was a ratty looking island
with stones and a few trees in it. It was not as large as that
but it did start at the front of the building and move back
toward the back of the building. What we have done, we have
continued it another 10 to 12 feet. The other thing in regard to
that what we tried to do, we did create a drive around through
`r. the doctors' office. There is not supposed to be a parking space
at the very end so somebody pulling into the doctors' office
could, in fact, do a U-turn and come right back out.
Unfortunately when our guy plowed it this week he put a pile of
snow there so you can't do that. I just noticed that tonight
when I was over there but that is the first time that has
happened.
Mr. McCann: When you are 1ii5.4y they will park all along there and it is
confusing.
Mr. LePage: Part of our problem is we weren't able to stripe the lot
properly. As I said earlier, we did try to stripe it but
unfortunately the snow was already flying.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this proposal?
Frank Barton, 9839 Auburndale: I have lived in Livonia for 15 years. I live down
the street about two blocks from Eastside Mario's. I saw it
originally developed. It seems to be a very good establishment.
They have been very good neighbors. We have been over to the
restaurant several times. It is congested at times but what I
know of the situation, I am the former President of the
13924
neighborhood association, the people that run the restaurant have
been very responsive with all the congestion problems and at the
same time have tried to alleviate it through directing traffic
and working with the neighborhood businesses as far as getting
'`,., additional parking. That area, and I have been on some of Bob
Bennett's commissions for road beautification for the City. We
have been trying to get Plymouth Road developed to improve the
look and businesses along Plymouth Road for many years. I think
the neighborhood residents are very, very pleased with Eastside
Mario's spending the money they did developing the property. It
is an excellent restaurant. They seem to be a good neighbor to
us and in addition I think because restaurant traffic slows down
in the summer, I don't think the additional 18 to 25 seats would
do anything as far as increasing the traffic. I think it just
might mean it would be a little more pleasant place to eat in the
summertime.
Tom Wozniak, 11407 Cranston: I am the current President of the Old Rosedale
Garden Homeowners' Association. I have seen the congestion at
the parking lot there and I believe that is probably the most
obvious sign of the success this restaurant has experienced. I
have been to the restaurant at its busies times when the lines
have been the longest and I have always been able to find parking
at the back of the lot. We are a homeowners' association of 660
homes, and I have had the task of coming here with a large group
many times addressing various commissions about objections to
various things. When, however, the neighborhood agrees to
something, they usually send the officers to talk, and that is
why I am here this evening. The neighborhood looks upon Eastside
\41,. Mario's as a very positive influence. It is the most visible
sign of the fact that things can and will happen on Plymouth
Road. Also, we in the neighborhood have welcomed them into our
particular neighborhood and we look at the patio as being
something that will add to the atmosphere and fun that this
restaurant tries to represent, and therefore we would appreciate
any consideration you can give them in order for them to have
continued success. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Sir, did they come and show you their plans? Did they have a
mooting with the neighborhood association regarding this?
Mr. Wozniak: Actually, I have travelled to the other side of town. We have
friends over there and we had seen the restaurant on that side of
town. So for me when the restaurant was built we thought the
patio was a natural part of the restaurant that was built there.
I have seen these plans, before I become aware of what was
happening here just more recently. In terms of the actual patio,
like I said it has been there since the thing was built.
Mr. McCann: Did the association get together and discuss this topic or is
this your personal point of view?
Mr. Wozniak: The association is aware of the fact that the patio is there.
Generally I would like to say that out of 660 residents, I have
not heard any negative comments about the restaurant up to this
point, and that is really very rare. We have had many things,
13925
including properties with 40 foot lots and waiver variances and
the neighborhood is very vocal about not wanting to take up that
particular area of our property for additional homes, but there
has been no negative comment on Mario's. We just had a general
meting on February 23 and this particular top was discussed
there and there were no negative comments mentioned.
Tino Delsignore, 32030 Plymouth Road: I would like to understand something. From
what I understand they have 128 spaces now and they are deficient
10. They are going to add 15 and they are required another 24.
Am I correct in saying they are going to be deficient 19 spaces
if this is approved?
Mr. Shane: Actually they are going to be deficient 28. The reason for that
is the lease agreement that they signed with the City for
City-owned property precludes them from using those spaces as a
count towards satisfying the zoning ordinance so that is one
reason why they had to obtain parking on adjacent properties
because they would be required to go the Zoning Board of Appeals
and they will probably use that as a justification because they
do have in actuality 18 spaces on the City's piece and another 28
spaces on adjacent property, but the technical deficiency is 28.
Mr. McCann: They cannot use the other properties against that because they
are not permanent. In five years they would be in actuality
short 28 spaces if they lose the other spots.
Mr. Shane: In actuality they are short now 28 spaces because they cannot usP
`, those spaces as a technical count towards satisfying the zoning
ordinance, but in actuality they are not 28 spaces short. They
are really short something like 10 because they have those spaces
to use. From a technical point they are 28 spaces short but from
a practical standpoint, it is much less than that.
Mr. DelSignore: In the past we have had problems with parking. We had to resolve
it by purchasing other property from the property owners next
door in order to do that. I feel if this were passed, it would
be unjust.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-5 by
Eastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor
patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side
of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-2-5 be denied for the
following reasons:
13926
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
'tow Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use will be detrimental to and not in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) that the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann
NAYS: LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion failed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-5 by
Fastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor
'to. patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side
of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-2-5 be approved
subject to the granting of a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals
for deficient off-street parking and to the following additional
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet #2 dated 2-6-95, as revised,
prepared by VanBrouck & Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the maximum number of additional seats to be located in the
patio area is 48.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
13927
2) That the petitioner has produced written agreements for the use
of off-site parking spaces sufficient to meet parking
requirements.
3) That the increased seating requested is outdoor seating and
therefore seasonal in nature and, consequently, will have a
minimal effect on the normal operation of restaurant and adjacent
uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: rapine, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. McCann, Chairman declared the motion failed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-31-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-5 by
Eastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor
patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side
`, of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 95-1-2-5 until the Regular Meeting of
March 14, 1995.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-6
by John DelSignore requesting waiver use approval to expand the
utilization of an existing Class C liquor license in connection with a
proposed expansion of an existing banquet hall (Laurel Manor) located
east of Eckles Road between Schoolcraft Road and the I-96 Expressway
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also
13928
received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their
office has no objection to this proposal. Tastly, we have
received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the
r... proposed expansion of the existing banquet hall is located on a
C-2/P split zoned parcel of land and is in compliance with all
district regulations. This site is in compliance with the
parking requirements set forth in sections 18.37 (I) and 18.38
(13) of the Zoning Ordinance and has a Zoning Grant for the 9'
parking spaces.
Mr. Nowak presented the revised site plans.
Mr. Piercecchi: Will all the mechanical units be screened?
Mr. Nowak: Basically they would be from the north and the west. There would
still be mechanical type units visible from the south and from a
portion of the east.
Mr. Morrow: Looking back from Schoolcraft Road will they be screened?
Mr. Nowak: No sir.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward.
John DelSignore, 14680 Fairlane: We are going to add two more rooms on the north
side and we know we had some problems trying to hide the
equipment so we did put in the wall. I heard your comments that
you can see the equipment from the expressway and I said I will
put the wall towards the expressway in the back and a little bit
on the side on Schoolcraft up to the addition. What I would like
to do, I would like to right now see the board okay this the way
it is. In the future I would like to screen the rest of the wall
because it is very costly.
Mr. Alanskas: John, number one, how is your parking?
Mr. DelSignore: We have plenty. When we bought the other property next door to
us two years ago we got almost three acres so we have plenty of
parking.
Mr. Alanskas: On your new addition, haw many feet do your patrons have to walk
from the new addition to the lobby to get into the facility?
Mr. DelSignore: Not too much because we are having another entrance towards the
back. We will have two entrances, one in the back and one in the
front. It will be a lot easier for our customers.
Mr. Alanskas: Haw big is that entrance?
Mr. DelSignore: It will be double door. Not like the front but there will be a
lobby.
fir..
13929
Mr. McCann: Regarding the rooftop, on the west side that is where you are not
going to have it covered. Then you are going to have SchooleLdit
Road, which is industrial across the street, but there will be
'taw some visibility at this time regarding the traffic on
Schoolcraft?
Mr. DelSignore: Yes. The new addition will be screened all the way around. In
the future we would like to continue all the way around. It
would be more uniform and I think it would look better.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. DelSignore you mention in the future. Could you put a
time frame on that?
Mr. DelSignore: I would say two to three years.
Mr. Morrow: Do you think you could live with two years?
Mr. DelSignore: Yes that sounds alright.
Mr. Morrow: I don't want to work any hardship on you but I am like you I
would like to see it completely uniform across there.
Mr. DelSignore: Well you know my word is like a contract.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#2-32-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-6 by
John DelSignore requesting waiver use approval to expand the
utilization of an existing Class C liquor license in connection with a
proposed expansion of an existing banquet hall (Laurel Manor) located
east of Eckles Road between Schoolcraft Road and the I-96 Expressway
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-2-6 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 1-30-95 (file date)
prepared by DiComo Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated 1-30-95
(file date) prepared by DiComo Associates, Inc. , Architects,
which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the roof-top mechanical units and trash dumpsters shown on
the site plan shall be screened from public view as required by
13930
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 within two years of
the date of this resolution.
for the following reasons:
"ft.
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special
and general waiver use standards and requirements as 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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, T.Pine, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McCann
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is 95-2-2-7 by Lone
Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to construct a full service restaurant to be located on the
west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have
also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he has no
objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from
the Inspection Department stating parking for this site would be
in compliance with Ordinance 543 Sections 18.37 (I) and 18.37
(17) . Lone Star's deficient 21 spaces would be provided by a
cross parking agreement with the Cantina Del Rio which has a
surplus of 37 parking spaces. This proposal will also require
submission to the Office of Assessment for a lot split and
combination.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step forward.
Drew Colson: I am with the Lone Star Steakhouse out of Wichita, Kansas.
Mr. Colson presented the site plan.
`r..
13931
Mr. Alanskas: You said 262 seats inside the building. Then you said future
dining. What do you mean by future dining?
,%ft. Mr. Colson: Are you talking about the expansion area?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes, how big and for how many seats?
Mr. Colson: Thirty-six.
Mr. Alanskas: For outside?
Mr. Colson: No that is indoors. 262 seats includes the new area also.
Mr. Morrow: Is the future development part of this petition or is that to
come back at a later date?
Mr. Colson: I would like to have this approved at this time.
Mr. Morrow: Does the staff have that?
Mr. Shane: No.
Mr. Morrow: That is not included in your notes?
Mr. Shane: No.
Mr. Colson: We can waive that for now.
�.► Mr. McCann: I still want to get that a little clearer. According to this of
the 262 seats, 24 seats will be on exterior patio or waiting
area, so that includes the 24 seats on the exterior patio area.
Is that what they are requesting the waiver use for today Mr.
Shane?
Mr. Shane: They requested a restaurant total seating capacity for 238 seats
inside. They have indicated future seating of an additional 24
so we took that to mean that they were asking at this time for
238 seats and would come back later for an additional 24.
Mr. McCann: Now that 24 is including an exterior patio waiting area. Is that
proposed to be built at this time?
Mr. Shane: It includes that as well as the seating inside but the addition
to the front that they are showing, it does not include that.
Mr. McCann: I understand that but if we have 238 seats, what is the parking
based on?
Mr. Shane: It is based on 262 seats.
Mr. McCann: So we include the 238 plus the 24.
13932
Mr. Shane: So they have a surplus either way you figure it. With the
additional future seats or with the seats they now want, they are
going to have a surplus of at least 20 parking spaces using
Cantina Del Rio spaces.
Mr. McCann: Using Cantina Del Rio's spaces.
Mr. Shane: They will have a surplus either way.
Dave Johnson: The parking spaces in the Cantina Del Rio parking lot are owned
by us and we have entered into an agreement with Lone Star.
Mr. McCann: These are excess spaces?
Mr. Shane: Right. You take the two sites together and add up the parking
spaces. Cantina Del Rio has excess spaces which the Lone Star
Restaurant is going to lease. The total sum of that is that
there will be 20 parking spaces surplus for the entire project.
Mr. McCann: I am just trying to get this straight today. We are approving
262 seats under the waiver use approval today. That does not
include another addition, which is approximately how many seats?
Mr. Colson: 36 seats.
Mr. McCann: Will that create a parking deficiency?
Mr. Shane: No.
`" w Mr. Alanskas: It shows in our notes that you came back with revised plans with
only two signs but you still have the neon tubing showing.
Mr. Colson: We did discuss that and that is my fault. I did not direct my
architect. In our agreement trying to get the signage, we
agreed to eliminate the ground sign and the neon tubing. That is
what I agreed to in our workshop.
Mr. Alanskas: So we are going with two wall signs and no neon tubing.
Mr. Colson: I understood we could get three wall signs and eliminate the
monument ground sign and neon tubing.
Mr. Alanskas: We discussed one facing west, which would be the expressway, and
one at the entrance. Where are you talking about for the third?
Mr. Colson: On this side (he pointed it out) .
Mr. Alanskas: Why?
Mr. Colson: Simply because we have the facade. We need to match the two
sides.
13933
Mr. Alanskas: You have one at the front of the building. So they can see that.
You have one on the expressway side. So they can see that. So
when they make their entrance they know they are going to your
`r.. restaurant. Why would you need the other one.
Mr. Colson: For visibility we would like to have it. I think the facade
looks silly without it.
Mr. Alanskas: I am just saying with two signs, I think you have plenty of
signage for people to see your facility.
Mr. Piercecchi: I kind of agree with that especially when Cantina Del Rio has
just one.
Mr. Shane: The building elevations which were submitted to our office
yesterday showed two wall signs, and in any case the signs
couldn't be a part of your approval now because they have to go
to the Zoning Board of Appeals so they will come back to you
under the control ordinance. The question can be resolved at
that time.
Mr. McCann: What about the neon?
Mr. Shane: The neon was on there but I concluded it was a mistake on the
architect's part.
Mr. Colson: I am willing to give up the neon but if we can't get our signs
then we have to come back to the neon.
Mr. Piercecchi: The ordinance allows one wall sign. If they want others, they
have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So it is really out
of our hands. We are just trying to keep down on the glare.
Mr. Colson: Your point was well taken at the last meeting and I apologize
that got on there because our agreement was to remove that in
hopes that we would get the wall signs.
Mr. Morrow: That is why we have the Zoning Board of Appeals. If it looks
like you have two signs with no neon and you are about to go
under, you could probably cry hardship and you could probably get
those signs. We like to vary our ordinance based on hardship and
we are certainly not here to put you out of business. We think
you will flourish with one sign, two signs and maybe three, if
you get them, but we like to think there is a hardship before we
grant them, but that is up to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-2-2-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
13934
#2-33-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-2-7 by
Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to construct a full service restaurant to be located on the
west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-2-2-7 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SA-1 dated 2-23-95, as revised,
prepared by Winter Stucky Architects which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A-3 and A-4 dated
2-23-95, as revised prepared by Winter Stucky Architects which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to, except that the neon tubing
shown on each building elevation is not approved and shall be
eliminated.
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 2-24-95 prepared
by Winter Stucky Architects which shall include a complete
underground sprinkler system is hereby approved and shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
4) That there shall be no ground (monument) sign permitted on the
subject site.
5) That the maximum number of customer seats, including patio
'towseating, shall not exceed 262.
6) That the off-street parking spaces shall be double striped.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine: I just want the record to show I am voting against this proposal
basically because I was opposed to the C-2 zoning going in there.
I think Mr. Johnson should be commended for pulling back
Builder's Square but Council, in their wisdom, went ahead and
13935
put in C-2 zoning but I still go back to the dream that Mr.
Johnson had there. I think that may have come to pass if we
would have hung on here. I am not opposed to any restaurant
going in there. I am just opposed to three to four restaurants
in a raw. If we would have had the original plan that was
submitted to this body eight or nine years ago when we had the
high-rise office buildings with the restaurants throughout the
whole complex, which I think was a great idea, I would have no
objection to the restaurant, but I do have my doubts about having
restaurant row in there and that is what it looks like it is
going to become. Once we grant that waiver use, it goes with the
land. If one of these restaurants goes under, you could have a
McDonalds, they have the zoning, they have the waiver use. You
could have a Bates go in there. You can have anything going in
there. You could have a Coney Island as long as they have the
zoning and the waiver use. To me we are just jumping in here to
get a restaurant so my vote is going to be no.
Mr. McCann: I have to agree with Mr. T.Pine. I believe this was one of the
best developments we had in the City of Livonia. I believe in
Mr. Johnson. I believe in what he was attempting to do there. I
know economic changes made him reconsider his original design.
However, I still don't believe commercial is the best use in
there. I voted against commercial going into that area because I
truly believe that area in three to four years will be wide open
to office development.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi, Morrow,
`o' NAYS: LaPine, McCann
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-2-2-8
by Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval for a Class C license for a proposed restaurant to be
located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and
Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Shane: The letter I read from the Inspection Department on the previous
petition had a last paragraph that was pertinent to this
petition. I will read that. Cantina Del Rio currently holds a
Class C license and is within 1000 feet of the proposed Lone Star
Restaurant. Utilization of a Class C liquor license will require
the City Council to waive the 1000 foot requirement. That is the
extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: We will go the petitioner. Is there anything you want to tell us
in particular about the liquor license?
John Carlin: I would ask that the Commission approve it and waive the 1000
13936
foot rule. I would like to point out that when this site was
originally planned in 1985 there were five restaurants planned at
that time, and that has now been reduced to four with Cantina Del
Rio being the first.
Mr. TaPine: But they weren't all together.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have your license?
Mr. Carlin: No we are asking for one of the City's quota licenses.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-2-2-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#2-34-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 95-2-2-8 by
Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval for a Class C license for a proposed restaurant to be located
on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile
Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-2-2-8 be
approved subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation
requirement by the City Council for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 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 a normal accessary use to the type of
restaurant within which it will be used.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi, Morrow,
NAYS: LaPine, McCann
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-6-6
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 15.03 of the ML district regulations of Zoning Ordinance #543
removing a prohibition of general and professional offices as
permitted uses.
13937
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, do you have any correspondence?
Mr. Shane: None other than a letter from the Mayor to yourselves.
Mr. McCann: We have received that letter suggesting that after the public
hearing we may consider tabling it for further discussion. Is
there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition since the Planning Commission is the petitioner?
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-6-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-35-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on February 28, 1995 on Petition 94-12-6-6 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 15.03 of the ML district regulations of Zoning Ordinance #543
removing a prohibition of general and professional offices as
permitted uses, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 94-12-6-6 until date uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mc. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-6-7
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
the C-2 district of Zoning Ordinance #543 to make second hand stores
and rummage shops waiver uses.
Mr. McCann: H, if you could give a description of the ordinance to the
audience.
Mr. Shane: What the Planning Commission is attempting to do here is to add
to the waiver uses in the C-2 district, uses that are not
automatically permitted but would require a public hearing and
City Council approval, and what the issue is here is second hand
stores and rummage shops, which seem to be proliferating in
different areas of the City. The Planning Commission would like
to have better control over those kinds of uses, and you can do
that with the waiver use process. That is what this amendment
would do.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-6-7 closed.
13938
On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-36-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
February 28, 1995 on Petition 94-12-6-7 by the City Planning
Commission to determine whether or not to amend the C-2 district of
Zoning Ordinance #543 to make second hand stores and rummage shops
waiver uses, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 94-12-6-7 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will provide the City with
more control over the location, number and nature of certain
types of uses.
2) That the proposed amendment is needed so as to control the number
and location of the subject uses.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
Approval for Harrison Woods Subdivision proposed to be located south
of Seven Mile Road, east and west of Harrison Avenue, in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 12.
`o.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter ftcci the Department of Parks and
Recreation stating their department found no problems or
discrepancies with this preliminary plat. We have also received
a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has
no objection to this development. Also in our file is a letter
from the Traffic Bureau stating the Police Department has no
objection to the site plan. They do recommend the installation
of a stop sign for northbound Harrison at 7 Mile in response to
the Harrison Woods preliminary plat. Lastly, we have received a
letter fLon► the Engineering Department stating they have no
objections to this proposal. They will require however that
storm drainage from the subdivision be outletted to Livonia Drain
#8 located near the intersection of Clarita and Lathers Avenues.
(The above outlet is in lieu of the proposed off-site ditch shown
on the preliminary plat.)
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Jerry Brady, 17150 Inkster, Redford: Originally we rezoned the property on the
east side and the west side of an existing road right-of-way,
13939
which was Harrison Road, which we dedicated some property to the
west to give them a full right-of-way for that street. There has
been some time trying to get that street to go all the way
through at one time and this is maybe a part solution. I don't
know. I think we conform to all the lot sizes, etc. As to the
engineering drawings, my engineer is here. We have made those
changes on the drawing.
Mr. LaPine: Are you referring to the fact you are not going to have a catch
basin? You are going to go into the drain?
Mr. Brady: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Can you give us what type of homes will go in there and the price
range and things of that nature?
Mr. Brady: There will be three proposed models, a ranch, a colonial and a
contemporary. The price range is about $130,000 to $150,000.
Mr. LaPine: Will they be brick?
Mr. Brady: Some brick in the front.
Mr. McCann: How many square feet?
Mr. Brady: All around 1500 square feet.
Mr. McCann: Attached garages?
*raw Mr. Brady: Yes sir.
Mr. Morrow: One of the deficiencies we looked at was the lots that side on
Seven Mile Road are a little short of our requirements. Have you
done anything to those lots that would beef up the landscaping or
greenbelt along Seven Mile Road as part of your plat?
Mr. Brady: We would be willing to do that and not have any ingress and
egress off Seven Mile Road. Some of that land was deficient when
we gave it as right-of-way.
Mr. Morrow: H, what would we do in that area? Is it part of the plat
requirement of the developer to put in a greenbelt along Seven
Mile and is the staff satisfied with his proposal?
Mr. Shane: I would be satisfied if it included a 20 foot greenbelt along the
Seven Mile Road right-of-way. Actually a greenbelt on the plat.
Then he could come back before final plat and propose a landscape
plan. That would satisfy me.
Mr. Morrow: Is that on the plan we have now?
Mr. Shane: Not the greenbelt.
`a..
13940
Mr. Brady: I would be more than happy to do that.
Mr. Morrow: You will add the greenbelt to those two lots that side on Seven
Mile and then before we go to final plat approval we will develop
some sort of a landscape for that greenbelt.
Mr. Brady: Consider it done.
Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed those two lots are 70 and 72.45 feet wide. Will you
use up that extra 10 and 12 feet then as part of the greenbelt?
Mr. Brady: I would stagger those setbacks. I would try to maintain the
building separations throughout the sub and still give you the 20
feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would that satisfy our needs?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. McCann: H, the sidewalks, etc. would come under the zoning regulations?
Mr. Shane: They will come under the platting regulations. That will be a
requirement of the Engineering Department on the final plat.
Mr. McCann: So we don't need to address that?
Mr. Shane: No.
Lillian Warpup, 18968 Brentwood: These homes would be going in behind my home. I
would like to know the size of the lots.
Mr. Shane: The smallest ones are 60 foot wide by 120 foot deep.
Ms. Warpup: I would like to know how wide Harrison is going to be.
Mr. Shane: Harrison is going to be 60 foot in width, the total right-of-way.
It will be the same as Brentwood.
Ms. Warpup: Haw are they going to manage to turn around? Is that going to
dead end there?
Mr. Shane: They will have to provide a small T turnaround temporarily until
Harrison Road is carried further south.
Ken Klein, 18956 Brentwood: I was over to the Planning Commission two weeks ago
and on the master plan I saw Lot No. 8 where they show the
barricade, all he said at that time it was going to be a
corrugated barricade at the end of the street. It wasn't going
to go to Clarita. How is the Fire Department going to turn
around? The treco that are in that area. It has been like this
for many, many years and when they come in to develop this are
they going to wholesale all those trccs out of there or leave
13941
them for people to enjoy when they move in there or are they
going to have to buy new trccc? Also, the engineer I talked to
two weeks ago mentioned the easement behind our property. They
'tor street
going to do some drainage control. When they paved our
street several years ago some of the properties, not mine but my
neighbor on Lot #6, had a small drainage problem on their back
property. It came through into the ditch that we used to have
back there. That now became inactive and her property and my
property and anyone else's that is low back there has a problem
until total frost is gone and the spring April rain is gone.
My neighbor did approach the City several years back and wanted
suggestions because with this small ditch being dry now, it was
not draining her back, and they had no solutions for her. The
engineer indicated two weeks ago there would be a drainage system
in the easement between the houses on Brentwood and Harrison.
Also, I see on the schematic we have here now we are calling the
RUF on the west side of Harrison Woods. Is that a new future
development after Harrison? Two weeks ago I received this notice
registered mail Saturday. I thought the requirement was 500
feet.
Mr. Shane: For zoning issues it is 500 feet but not for preliminary plat.
Mr. Klein: I wondered because I had neighbors to the south of me and the
people across the street did not get notices. I am reassured the
type of houses will be comparable to the neighborhood.
Bruce Davidson, 18914 Brentwood: I would like this commission to know that we
'tow fact
support what is happening here with Harrison Woods. In
fact that is not strong enough. My mother is here tonight and
she is a property owner and a person that has resided in this
community since this community was a city. Since 1949 we have
lived at this address. What I was going to say was we vehemently
oppose this project. With that aside, we have a question about
the proposed Harrison Street continuing through to Clarita. If
we are vehemently opposed to Harrison Woods words cannot express
adequately how we feel about Harrison Street going all the way
through. We already have a traffic problem and some other folks
here earlier were discussing their flooding problem. My mom can
attest to how clay soil holds water and haw poorly the property
around there drains. If this proposed sub doPs indeed get
constructed, I hope we don't have increased problems with water.
I trust my City but I trust them only so far. I hope they do a
good job with their studies, and I hope that our skating rinks
don't get any deeper. Getting back to Harrison Street. It
sounds like this is going to become a reality fairly soon.
Please don't put that street through. We have enough traffic on
Brentwood Avenue. In fact, it is quite common to hear the rumble
of the fire trucks cutting through Brentwood to get to that fire
station, which is located on Clarita and Middlebelt. If they had
access to get to their fire house from some other portions of
Livonia, it is just one more rumble down the street. The police
13942
want stop signs on proposed Harrison Street. Let me tell you, we
have had stop signs on Brentwood Avenue. That doesn't slow
anybody down. It is not kids racing around. I am up at six
o'clock in the morning. It is adults racing 45 m.p.h. down
Brentwood to get to work. There are a lot of problems in the
world and in the City of Livonia. This proposed Harrison sub is
just going to add to the problems. The headaches that we will
experience, you folks don't live there. I don't pretend to know
where everybody lives but I don't think you live on Brentwood.
As much as the Clarenceville School District needs more warm
bodies, little children, that is great, that is a reality. We
need more money to pump into the coffers of the City but I am a
NIMBI (not in my back yard) . I really am. I don't like it and I
really don't like the thought of Harrison Street being built and
I really, really don't like Harrison Street exiting into Clarita.
If it has to be done, put a barricade there. There is a
barricade on Clarita where it terminates near Lathers and that
sufficed for years.
Mr. Klein: He talked about surveys. We incorporated a neighborhood watch
last summer. The Traffic Commission and Police Department of the
City of Livonia's idea of a traffic survey is putting out their
radar detector for two hours and taking it away. How can you
determine anything in two hours?
Mr. McCann: That is not something we can deal with tonight.
Mr. Klein: We have been trying to get a stop sign but we haven't yet.
'err. Mr. McCann: Our duty here tonight is to deal with the preliminary plat.
Mr. Klein: I realize that but they talked about street surveys and I had to
say something. If they do open up Harrison to Clarita in the
future, he is right. The Fire Department, it is another route
for them to get back instead of using the main streets.
Mr. McCann: We will go back to the petitioner for his continents regarding this
proposal.
Mr. Brady: As to the trees, we are going to try to save every tree that is
possible. It only enhances the value of the house. Some of them
have to be destroyed. As to the drainage, we will have a state-
of-the-arts drainage system incorporated into these drawings. It
may eliminate all of the problems on the adjacent lots. As to
the barricade or the T turnaround, we can accommodate that.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, the preliminary plat meets all the requirements?
Mr. Shane: Yes it does.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat Approval for
Harrison Woods Subdivision closed.
4r•
13943
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. TaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-37-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
`�. February 28, 1995, by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary Plat
Approval for Harrison Woods Subdivision proposed to be located south
of Seven Mile Road, east and west of Harrison Avenue, in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Harrison Woods
Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of the open space
requirement set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and to
the following additional conditions:
1) That a landscape plan showing the proposed treatment of a 20 foot
wide greenbelt easement which shall be made a part of the
Preliminary Plat, and which shall be located on the north side of
lots abutting Seven Mile Road, shall be submitted to and approved
by the Planning Commission prior to the approval of the Final
Plat;
2) That a subdivision entrance marker plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Commission prior to the approval of the
Final Plat.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is in compliance with all
applicable standards and requirements set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
`. 2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to development of the subject lands.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in
the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices
have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools,
Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation
Department.
Mr. Morrow: Just a comment to the people here. Item number two was a
discussion on zoning. The zoning already exists on this and all
they are doing is technically meeting the plat act requirements
of the State of Michigan. We cannot preclude them from
developing their property if it meets the plat act. That is why
it is being approved tonight. We have done the best we can.
What happens to Harrison in the future, only time can tell. I
just wanted to let you know why it was approved tonight.
Mrs. Blomberg: I would like to make one comment. I am from the same area and I
am really happy to see that new houses will go up in the
Clarenceville area. I am an original Clarenceville person. It
makes me happy to think it is growing.
13944
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 698th Regular Meeting held on February 14, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-38-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 698th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on February 14, 1995 are hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Dearborn Federal Credit Union requesting approval for
signage for the building located at 37373 Seven Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Nowak: The proposed signage was not in conformance with the zoning
ordinance so the petitioner sought and was granted a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposal is for three
ground signs, one sign in the front yard, one in the side yard
abutting Newburgh, and one near the rear entrance to the
building. It would consist of two 12 sq. ft. signs saying
‘oift. "Dearborn Federal Credit Union". That would be the signage in
front of the building and on the west side yard. Adjacent to the
rear of the building is a 5 sq. ft. sign saying "Livonia
Financial Center".
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Steve Jaskowski: I am the Building and Facility Manager for Dearborn Federal
Credit Union. I also have Gary Cooper here, who is our
architect. As you can see and as we addressed before, two ground
signs, one on Newburgh and one on Seven Mile Road. The one on
Newburgh is at the entranceway. The one on Seven Mile just
identifies the building and a small sign on the that says
"Livonia Financial Center". This is just an identification sign.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-39-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that the Sign Permit application by Dearborn Federal
Credit Union requesting approval for signage for the building located
at 37373 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
13945
1) That the Sign Plan, defined as Sheet A509 dated Feb. 2, 1995, as
revised, by Quinn Evans Architects, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet L001 dated Feb. 2, 1995, as
revised, by Quinn Evans Architects, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 699th Regular Meeting &
Public Hearings held on February 28, 1995 was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION
Z:'Lee Mo ow, - etary
ATTEST: L
,%J' McCann, dice Chairman
j9 ,r