HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1991-06-18 11671
MINUTES OF THE 625th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
Now
On Tuesday, June 18, 1991, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 625th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 30 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver William LaPine
Raymond W. Tent Conrad Gniewek R. Lee Morrow
James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek
Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were
also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. 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
r. the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or
not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Tent acted as Secretary in the absence of Mrs. Fandrei.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
91-5-2-14 by Michael S. Downes & Assoc. requesting waiver use approval
to construct a single family cluster development on the west side of
Harrison between Five Mile and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
13.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have
also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating (1) The
streets are shown as being 28 feet. Ordinance #2.03 (f) requires a
minimum of 30 feet. This would require the posting of "No Parking"
signs through the whole site. (2) The cul-de-sac is 20 feet wide
with a 23 foot radius. This will not allow fire equipment to
access this area. (3) No sidewalks are shown. (4) No street
lighting. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Division of
Fire stating they have no objections to this proposal.
11672
Mr. Engebretson: Before we call the petitioner down, Mr. Nagy since this
particular land has been the focus of considerable controversy in
the past year or so, would you please take a moment to recap the
history of what is going on with this parcel of land.
Mr. Nagy: Without going through a great deal of history, the property, as the
Commission certainly knows and perhaps some of the audience may
well know, the property in this petition is brought to you by the
Southwood Construction Company and they, in the past, have filed
for a zoning change on the subject property on three different
occasions. The long and the short of it all is that all three
petitions were ultimately denied by the City Council. As a result
of those denials a suit was commenced in Circuit Court brought
against the City of Livonia by Southwood Construction Company.
There was a settlement of that lawsuit and the parties to the suit,
the City of Livonia as well as Southwood Construction, agreed to
settle their differences on the basis of rezoning the property to
an R-2 zoning classification, which is the subject zoning of the
property under consideration tonight as indicated on the map.
Along with that settlement they agreed, in concept, to a
development plan for the property and that is it would be developed
in accordance with the cluster option available pursuant to the R-2
zoning district regulations, the maximum allowable units would not
exceed 83 and no cluster would exceed more than 3 units and the
configuration for the development would roughly follow the concept
that was referenced in the settlement and, again, it is displayed
on the map on the screen. What is before you is a result of the
settlement of that law suit. Your petitioner is now bringing
forward a site plan pursuant to the cluster option within the R-2
zoning classification. That is what the hearing tonight is about.
Mr. Engebretson: So to clarify then Mr. Nagy one of the latter points you made
relative to the cluster type housing, was that the cluster housing
plan was part of the agreement between the City and the developer
in the Court matter?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it was.
Mr. Morrow: On that same subject, I was reading my background notes and it said
it may be developed. I want to know what charge I am under
tonight. As an outgrowth of that Consent Judgment, was the cluster
homes part of that Consent Judgment between the developer and the
City with the obvious approval of the Judge?
Mr. Nagy: It was part of the Consent Order. The pertinent paragraph says
that "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the election of the plaintiff,
the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, may be
developed and have constructed thereon a single family cluster
development having a maximum total density of eighty-three (83)
units," so the words "may be developed" is set forth.
Mr. Morrow: What was the first part of that again?
Mr. Nagy: The paragraph begins "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the election of
the plaintiff".
11673
Mr. Morrow: At the election. He is exercising his option. That is the point I
wanted to clear up.
Mr. Gniewek: John, there was some indication by the Traffic Department that
there was some discrepancies as far as sizes of the roads, the
'04111. cul-de-sac, etc. Have those been reflected in the new site plan?
Mr. Nagy: That is true. They have been. The Traffic Bureau, the section
they cited is pursuant to a residential subdivision plat. If this
was a subdivision per se, then that would be the applicable
requirements pursuant to a conventional subdivision plan. What we
have before us tonight is the single family cluster option with
private roads, so therefore the sections they cited are not
applicable because of the private development that we are dealing
with tonight.
Mr. Gniewek: It was indicated by the Traffic Department that the cul-de-sac was
not large enough to accommodate the traffic pattern.
Mr. Nagy: There has been some adjustment to the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Gniewek: The site plans we are referring to here will reflect those
particular adjustments.
Mr. Nagy: Yes, the cul-de-sac enlargement has been provided for.
Mr. LaPine: John, what we are saying here is the reason the roads will not be
30 feet is because they are private roads?
Mr. Nagy: Right.
Mr. LaPine: Therefore, the City has no jurisdiction on those roads as far as
maintenance? It is all taken care of by the condos. Is that
right?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Just to make sure, Connie brought up about the radius of the
cul-de-sac. What about sidewalks? Are there going to be
sidewalks?
Mr. Nagy: We discussed that with the petitioner and it was obviously a matter
of discussion at your study meeting, and the petitioner wants to
argue his case before the Commission this evening. The plan has
not been revised to provide sidewalks and he wishes to discuss that
directly with the Commission.
Mr. LaPine: The street lights?
Mr. Nagy: The plan has been revised to provide for street lights.
Mr. LaPine: Let's go back to the sidewalks for one moment. Seeing the roads
are private, does that mean the sidewalks will be private? If he
puts in sidewalks, is he required to maintain them or is the City
required to maintain them?
11674
Mr. Nagy: The condominium association would be required to maintain them.
The owners party to that association. It is their responsibility
to maintain the roads, the sidewalks, the ground, the landscaping,
the buildings. Everything related to the project is the
responsibility of the homeowners' association.
Mr. LaPine: Is this what happens in all condo situations?
Mr. Nagy: That is true.
Mr. LaPine: Sewers are the responsibility of the City though or is that condo?
Mr. Nagy: Sewers, if they are public sewers, then the City would take an
easement over the area to maintain them, usually because the sewers
go beyond the project area. They tend to be public.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, in regards to the Traffic letter, there was an indication
about no parking signs throughout the whole site. Will this have
any affect on our parking on the site? Will we have adequate
parking without using street parking?
Mr. Nagy: We have adequate parking within the project without relying on
street right-of-way.
Mr. Tent: The street parking would have been a bonus if the roads were wide
enough. At this point there is no waiver required. Each unit has
enough parking there to accommodate the site?
Mr. Nagy: To accommodate our off-street parking requirements.
Mr. Tent: And that is reflected in the site plan?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it is.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, will the landscape plan be a part of our approval this
evening?
Mr. Nagy: You will notice in the notes we provided, we do not have a
landscape plan. We are asking that a detailed landscape plan be
submitted for the Planning Commission to review within 30 days.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, on the trash pickup, if it is a private road, they will
have to have a private hauler come in?
Mr. Nagy: No. Because there is still individual ownership of the units, the
owners of those units pay property taxes and as such pay the
special millage that is on your tax for refuse collection. By
virtue of paying that special millage and that tax, they are
therefore entitled to refuse collection so the City contracted
refuse hauler will go upon their property to pick up refuse just as
if it were an ordinary detached home.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward, give us your name and
address for the record and give us your reasons for making this
request.
11675
Michael Downes, Architect, 23332 Orchard Lake Road, Farmington Hills: I am the
representative for the Southwood Construction Company and I think
for the most part all the questions that you have been asking John
and what Ralph said at the beginning just about covers everything.
This particular plan is very similar to the one we took to the
4111. Council and the one which they based the Consent Judgment on. (Mr.
Downes displayed the site plan) The only changes made were minor
changes relative to spacing between buildings because we have more
units with side door openings to the garages. On the original plan
a lot of them had front garage doors. That spacing is reflected in
here. The other situation which is reflected, which I changed, we
have shown the various lighting fixtures, etc. We have also
discussed trash collection and John essentially is correct. This
is a private road but utility vehicles and emergency vehicles are
always allowed to go on that private road. There are papers we
have to file with the City, because this is a condominium, which
gives them the right to go on there for police, fire, trash,
utilities, etc. Whenever there is a public utility on there, for
example there is a storm sewer that runs through there, there is an
easement for that storm sewer. There is a water line that
traverses the entire property. There is an easement for that. The
sanitary sewer, there will be an easement for that because those
are all public utilities. The sewer line that goes from the main
sanitary into the unit, that would be private because it only
serves one unit. At any rate, the public services would be covered
with easements. As you can see from the plan, there is a large
open recreation space in the middle, which is available for the use
of the entire condominium development and their jurisdiction as to
what they eventually are going to do as far as swings, a
playground, whatever they are going to put in there. They have the
jurisdiction, after the initial sale, to put that in there and they
will maintain that. At the present time, most of the reasons we do
these site plans that show sidewalks is because it was only until
recently that the post office wanted to make house to house
delivery and they needed the sidewalks. A few years ago that
changed. The post office, now they don't want to make house to
house deliveries. They go with a truck and drop it at one central
location with several boxes and the residents when they come in
they will either walk up or drive up to their particular box.
Therefore, there is not really a need on a private development like
this to have any kind of a walk system. We do intend, however, to
put a bike path through here, which will be reflected in our
landscape plan because obviously we are going to have landscaping
areas around and the bike path will be meandering through those
roads and winding around, etc. We do have sidewalks now. Every
unit has a sidewalk that leads from their driveway to their front
door. So anybody pulling into their driveway obviously can get to
their front door. I believe that answers most of the questions
asked by the Commissioners. If there are any other specifics I
missed, I would be glad to answer them.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Downes, it was a nice presentation and I appreciate the fact
that you are going to provide bike paths there for the younger
adults. The mail pick up, I wouldn't like that but that is
11676
another thing. What concerns me is this is going to be a young
family development. There are going to be a lot of young children
there probably. They like to ride tricycles. Where will the young
kids ride their tricycles if they have no sidewalks?
�.► Mr. Downes: They will ride them in the bike path.
Mr. Tent: That is the bike path for the two wheeler bikes but what about the
homes up front where they are a distance from the bike path. In
other words, I have seen and I have heard questions here within the
City where that was quite a question. The people asked why can't
we have sidewalks not just to walk on but for the children to ride
their tricycles. That was just one of the concerns. While you did
provide for the adults there, I don't know why not for the children
since this is a young family development.
Mr. Downes: I think the children can ride their bikes in this general area or
they can ride on the bike paths if they are with adults.
Mr. Tent: It is more convenient for the mothers to look out the windows and
see them riding their trike up and down the walk in front of the
house.
Mr. Downes: We will have a play area some place in this area for the general
condominium. That doesn't preclude any particular homeowner from
having sand boxes alongside their front door or in the rear yard if
they want to.
Mr. Tent: Those are my thoughts about the front sidewalks. I certainly would
like to see them in the subdivision.
`.. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Downes you are also indicating that people who want to walk up
to get their mail will have to walk in the roadway. Is that
correct?
Mr. Downes: Essentially that will be correct. Most of them will drive up as
they come in or drive out.
Mr. Gniewek: Going along with Mr. Tent's comment, the units that are away from
the central location, the ones on the opposite side of the street,
what facilities would their kids have? Just a driveway to run up
and down?
Mr. Downes: I would imagine that their parents would walk them across to the
general playground.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Downes, I have a real problem. I have little kids. Even older
adults want to have a place to walk up and down the street.
Sidewalks are a very essential part of any planned community
living. It keeps kids out of the street. It keeps kids from
riding up and down the street with their bikes and their toys.
What is your client's position with regard to this? Does he want
to go ahead even, if I am hearing correctly, the majority of the
Planning Commission want these sidewalks, or is he unwilling to go
along with it?
11677
Mr. Downes: I believe the only way I can put this is that as of the last
discussion with my client, he does not want to put in interior
sidewalks around the site.
Mr. Kluver: To the petitioner, when you put your internal road system in, is
r.. this going to be concrete streets?
Mr. Downes: Yes I believe it is.
Mr. Kluver: Will there be curbing? What are you going to do as far as the
water runoff?
Mr. Downes: I believe they are going to be mountable curbs. I can't be sure of
that. The last project we did with this particular development, we
put in mountable curbs so I would assume these are going to be the
same unless the Engineering Department has some comments about
that. I would imagine we would put in the same curbs.
Mr. Kluver: I would assume you have a fairly good idea since this obviously
is not your first project. With that, if you were to put in
mountable curbs, why can't you put in, next to the mountable curbs,
a sidewalk? It could be 30 inches wide or wider, perhaps 36
inches.
Mr. Downes: I don't believe 36 inches would be wide enough.
Mr. Kluver: I don't know how wide sidewalks should be but if you are going to
take the amount of time to put a concrete road in, lay out a
mountable curb, you could lay out a sidewalk and make that adjacent
to the mountable curb.
`4.1.
Mr. Downes: My personal feeling is putting a sidewalk right next to the curb is
relatively dangerous. That is my personal feeling. It is one
thing to have a subdivision where you have a 60 foot right-of-way
and you put in a 30 foot street, it still gives you 15 feet on both
sides so that the sidewalk ends up being 10 feet away from the road
itself. To put the sidewalk right up against the road, I
personally believe is quite dangerous.
Mr. Kluver: Therefore, in going back and reviewing what you are saying, because
we have a narrow system and it appears that is the way the
development is laid out, we don't have sufficient area within the
development to put in a road, a mountable curb and a sidewalk. Is
that correct?
Mr. Downes: Not really. For example, from the roadway to each garage is a
minimum of 25 feet. A car is approximately 20 feet if you park it
all the way up to the garage. If anybody is parking in the
driveway and you do put a walk in there, they will be walking
behind the cars. That can be dangerous. A walkway should be
within, which means going from driveway to driveway, the interior
of the site.
Mr. Kluver: Can this site accommodate sidewalks? Yes or no?
Mr. Downes: It can.
11678
Mr. Kluver: So why don't we put them in?
Mr. Downes: Because we don't feel they are necessary or proper. I think there
is more to be gained by not putting them in than by putting them
in.
Mr. Kluver: You say you can put them in and they will fit but you are not going
to put them in.
Mr. Downes: No, not right now.
Mr. Kluver: Is this a cost issue?
Mr. Downes: To my way of thinking it is more of a safety issue.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I had was Mr. Downes said the sidewalk would be
unsafe with that close proximity to the road. The only thing I can
think is more unsafe, is not having any sidewalks at all. That is
my unprofessional opinion. I would also like to see the
elevations.
Mr. Downes presented the elevations.
Mr. Downes: They are 3 unit buildings consisting of 3 types of units. There
are 28 building groups total.
Mr. Gniewek: What is the square footage of each unit?
Mr. Downes: They vary. Essentially, the ranches are 1187. The two-story B
units are 1353 and the two-story C units are 1417, not including
garages. These all have two car garages.
Mr. LaPine: What is the distance from unit to unit? How much green space do we
have between units?
Mr. Downes: In most instances there is approximately 60 feet.
Mr. LaPine: There is considerable distance?
Mr. Downes: Yes. That is why we were able to put in side door garages.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Downes, you have 28 units?
Mr. Downes: Twenty-eight buildings.
Mr. Vyhnalek: One is just going to have two units? Where is that located?
Mr. Downes pointed it out on the site plan.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Downes, the elevation you have there, that is what you are
proposing for the site?
Mr. Downes: Essentially yes.
Mr. Tent: Does that show a sidewalk in front of the house?
11679
Mr. Downes: The rendering shows a sidewalk.
Mr. Tent: That is to complete the picture, right?
Mr. Downes: No that is incorrect. That is the artist's conception.
Robert Ostander, 15400 Harrison: If I am not mistaken, we can't have sidewalks
next to the roadway because it is unsafe but it is safe to walk in
the roadway. That puzzles me. There is another thing that puzzles
me, with the 25 foot setback and as the gentleman stated, no
parking on the road, each unit has one car. Am I to assume they
never have company, they are not a two-car family, they never have
a graduation party, etc. In other words we are back to the same
bit no matter what the Court says. We are trying to crowd too much
into a small area. Now can any one of you gentleman honestly say
that 25-foot, one-car parking space is ample for today's society?
Mr. Engebretson: We are not in an adversarial position here sir.
Mr. Ostander: I know you are not an adversary sir but I have been to these
meetings for seven or eight years and every time the citizens, and
we have had good turnouts, have been against something, then the
Mayor, the Council, the attorneys, the builders get together and
the builder gets just what he wants. All I am questioning is, we
are still trying to put too much in too small of an area. If they
have a parking problem there, where are they going to park?
Harrison - I live on Harrison. Now we have another problem.
Gentlemen, I believe once again he is going to have to come up with
something better than this. Ample parking, sidewalks and not try
to crowd so much into such a small area.
Mr. Nagy: What is being proposed here, as the petitioner indicated, each unit
is to have a two-car garage. There will be two cars in the garage
and there will be the ability to park two cars in the driveway in
front of the garage. Each unit has the ability to accommodate four
cars. Because these are private streets, the association will
decide whether they will allow on street or off street parking
within the roadway but the City will not regulate it by the
placement of signs because as indicated these are now private roads
not public roads.
Mr. Engebretson: John, on that same subject, I am still a bit confused as to what
the parameters are that we are working with here. Does the Court
order require us to deal with the site plan with that kind of
density, because I agree with the gentleman based on what I have
heard so far that it seems like there are all kinds of things
missing here in order to pack that density. I am just wondering
has the Court directed that density is what we live with?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. The Court order clearly indicates that it can provide a
cluster development with maximum total density of 83 units.
Mr. Engebretson: That is what they have.
Mr. Morrow: Is that the plan that was approved?
11680
Mr. Nagy: It has been refined. In concept that is the plan. It has been
refined to the extent of precise dimensioning, the setbacks between
the buildings and the driveways, etc. but in concept that is the
plan.
11110. Mr. LaPine: John, are you saying that the association, once all the condos are
all sold, the association gets together and they determine if there
shall be parking or no parking on the street. The City has no
jurisdiction over that. Is that what you are telling me? That
doesn't make sense John. Let's assume you have a 28 foot road and
the association says you can park on both sides of the road. That
leaves 20 feet. Say there is a fire in the middle of the night, is
that going to leave room for emergency vehicles to go through?
That doesn't make sense. The City should have some jurisdiction
like saying the roads have to be a certain width and there can be
parking on only one side because emergency vehicles have to get
through there. I have a problem with a fire truck getting through
with cars parked on both sides of the street.
Mr. Nagy: The City always has the right to protect the public welfare, health
and safety. The City always has the right to enforce reasonable
public safety standards but the simple issue of whether there will
be or will not be street parking really will be a matter for the
association to decide.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we are very keenly aware that one of our principal guides
in making some of the decisions that we do has to do with
protecting the health, safety and welfare of the community and I
think that some of the concerns expressed regarding the safety
issues are very germane.
nor
Mr. Downes: You have to understand the condominium associations are basically
regulated by the state. Their by-laws, etc. are governed by the
state. They cannot disregard local requirements as far as
driveways, etc. In other words, they cannot put in a 12 foot drive
because they determine it is a 12 foot drive. They can't do that
because they are going to be regulated by the state. If the City
allows you to put in a 16 foot drive, fine you can do that. It has
to be under normal circumstances. The condominium association
could understandably pass a by-law saying they have only maximum
parking on one side or they could pass a law saying they have
parking on neither side only in your driveway. If you have more
than four people coming, invite your neighbors so you have eight
car parking. John is correct in the sense it is a private road but
there are certain criteria that you still have to follow.
Mr. Engebretson: You talk about condominium associations being governed by state
guidelines and they do what is normally done in a community. As
you know, normally we deal with 30 foot wide streets here not 28.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the open space. What percentage is open space? What is
required and what do you have?
Mr. Downes: The open space is approximately 120 feet by 625 feet, which is
about 1 3/4 acres.
11681
Mr. Vyhnalek: Under the laws what are you supposed to have?
Mr. Nagy: The ground coverage of the building groups cannot exceed 25% of the
site area. They are under that.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It says 83 maximum and you are going to the maximum. Was there any
'41111. talk at all between the City Council and your people that you have
to go to the maximum? I know you want to get your money but
everybody is saying it is too much.
Mr. Downes: We started out with 103 and through the Consent Judgment it was
reduced down to 83. That is the minimum and the maximum as far as
we can see.
Mr. Vyhnalek: As one Commissioner, I think it is going to be a tough proposition
not just here but also at Council with this plan. It is just
overbuilt.
Jack Cooper, 15825 Harrison: I live in front of the property that is landlocked.
I would like to ask the Planning Commission to address this issue.
I have hoped for years that something would be done to allow this
home access to a road like every other home in the area.
Basically, the City Council and Planning Commission have gone out
of their way in the past to eliminate these landlock situations in
the City of Livonia and I would like them to do so at this time if
they could. They have to share my driveway, which is a gravel
driveway, and it is an ongoing maintenance thing and it would be
not only to my benefit but to their benefit also to have their own
access.
Mr. Engebretson: Who has to share your driveway?
Mr. Cooper: The people who live behind me. (Mr. Cooper pointed it out on the
map)
Mr. Engebretson: Unfortunately, I don't know if we really can address that issue
in association with this particular petition.
Mr. Cooper: My only contention is if it is not addressed now, it never will be.
It will always be there. Whereas, it might be a situation where it
was just a minor move here and there. We could work something out.
Mr. Engebretson: I would suggest you get Mr. Downes' telephone number and try to
work that out with him before this plan proceeds because you know
that this is under Court order and this is something that is
destined to happen. The form of it isn't necessarily determined
yet but the reality of this development taking place is pretty
clear. It was directed by the Court.
Mr. Cooper: Generally I am in favor of this. There are certain aspects such as
the density that concerns me and the sidewalks but having that
piece of land landlocked right now when it seems like it could be
changed.
Mr. Engebretson: All I can suggest is you talk to Mr. Downes.
.. Mr. Cooper: I don't think there would be much interest if he doesn't have much
interest to put sidewalks in.
11682
Lillian Edney, 15405 Harrison: I promised myself I was not going to get up here
tonight but I am seeing red. I would like some clarification on
the zoning. We fought all the time against condos and that is all
I have heard since. Also, Harrison is going to get all the
traffic. He even mentioned they were going to put the mailboxes
off of Harrison. If this goes through, why couldn't they put the
Nair mailboxes in the middle rather than everyone coming from Harrison?
Also, I noticed in answering your questions Mr. Downes was very
vague in a lot of the answers and it seems like he had a lot of
open-ended options, which bothers me. When they start building is
it going to be that vague? I have a feeling there are going to be
a lot of sidewalk superintendents watching what goes on. We get an
extremely lot of traffic as it is without that much density. Is
there a possibility they could put stop signs on the opening at
Harrison so the people would at least have to stop? I live in the
second house from Five Mile. We have to go across the street to
get our mail and sometimes I have to wait for six cars before I can
cross the street and that is without 83 extra units. Could someone
clarify that? It was supposed to be single family homes not
condos.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the Court made that decision.
Mrs. Edney: But they said R-2. That is single family homes.
Mr. Engebretson: But you heard Mr. Nagy. We asked him twice early on to read from
the Court order that that did provide for this number of cluster
homes to be built and as you also heard they are going right to the
maximum, which is their right.
Mrs. Edney: They are going to dump that in our backyard and they are going to
be on their way.
Mr. Gniewek: I think the lady is asking for a clarification of what can go into
R-2. R-2 indicates a single family residence. Under the waiver
use, cluster housing is allowed in R-2 so it is single family
residential but technically we are supposed to call these cluster
homes not condominiums.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the term condominium is used to indicate a form of
ownership. Condominiums can be single units. They can also be
high-rise buildings.
Charlotte Eickhoff, 28900 Rayburn: I have a couple of questions. Number one, the
road within this development has been referred to as a private
road. Is that correct?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes.
Ms. Eickhoff: Is it normal procedure or has it been with the City to open a
private road onto a residential street versus a main or secondary
road?
Mr. Nagy: As we all know the City of Livonia does not have that many
condominium projects. To say is this the only condominium that has
access to a secondary street versus a mile road. No it is not.
There are other examples.
11683
Ms. Eickhoff: But I don't live on a secondary street. I live on a residential
street. Rayburn is not considered a secondary street according to
the map the City sends out every year when it gives all the plowing
schedules and what streets will get plowed first. It is always
referred to as a residential street.
rr.► Mr. Nagy: This project is residential. People will be residing there and
they will have home ownership.
Ms. Eickhoff: But they will be coming off a private road.
Mr. Nagy: The public will have the right to go on this street.
Ms. Eickhoff: What about us? Will we have the right to go on that street?
Mr. Nagy: You will have the right to go on the street. The burden that this
association is going to take is the maintenance of this road even
though they lead to public roads. Within the project area they are
going to have to take the burden of maintaining that as if it were
a public street but anyone travelling on that road will not know
the difference whether they are on a public or private road.
Ms. Eickhoff: In other words, the sign that is at the end of our street that says
"no outlet" will ultimately come down because there will be access
going through. Am I correct?
Mr. Nagy: I would think that is correct.
Ms. Eickhoff: It means everytime there is a accident at Five Mile and Middlebelt
and there is some kind of a backup, we will get all that traffic
down Rayburn into this development. That will be real good for our
�.. kids! We have sidewalks and that is nice but we also have many,
many young kids that live in that neighborhood and we don't have
any playgrounds around us. The only playgrounds these kids have
are the streets and sidewalks. We have fought and fought to try to
get them not to put a road through. There is no place for them to
play. Rayburn is the only paved street. Roycroft is gravel. That
is not a paved road and there are no sidewalks over there. The
only street in this area with sidewalks close is Rayburn. There
are no sidewalks on Broadmoor and there are no sidewalks on
Harrison and there are no sidewalks and it is a gravel road on
Roycroft. I don't know where our kids are supposed to play. Right
now they play in the street. We don't have this great big
backyard and there is no place else for them to play. We are not
going to have an enclosed playground area here. What about the
parking. You open that up then everybody that is looking for some
place to park, they will say let's go park on Rayburn. That is all
paved and they have sidewalks over there. We have someplace to
walk and someplace to park and we don't have to worry about it.
There are probably five of those units within close walking
distance off that street. I have a two-car garage. Big deal. I
couldn't park a car in there if I had to. My cars are on the
driveway. What is to say these people are going to have the same
situation. I really think something should be considered other
11684
than opening this. They had proposed a site plan at one time that
had single units and brought in off Rayburn and Roycroft and then
the rest coming from the other direction. That would have been a
development such as this. I think they should either get some
consideration to keeping that closed and keeping that private the
way they want it or finding some way to limit that traffic either
vr.y making it a one way in and a one way out or something of that
nature or putting single family homes off Rayburn and Roycroft like
they had presented it one other time. I think our kids have just
as much right for a place to play as everyone else's and there is
no playground within a one mile radius of that area. There is
nothing between Middlebelt and Inkster, Five Mile and Six Mile. No
place for these kids to play. I don't know about anybody else that
has kids but I am not willing to let my 9 and 11 year old go across
Five Mile and Middlebelt or some other main road to find a
playground. I don't want them to get killed by a car. On the same
token I don't want them to get run over down the street because we
have this traffic racing in and out of this development. I really
wish some more consideration would be given to this.
Mr. Morrow: I want to respond to the young lady that just left the podium. I
have diligently tried here tonight to find out if I had any
latitude with this particular project and I have been convinced I
have no latitute. We know we have gone through a number of
rezonings in this particular area even some site plans. The
neighbors have fought diligently to get it developed the way they
want. The City has supported them in most of those cases. Here is
a case where, in my mind, we never did get together so we had a
Judge decide what is good for us. It is not that we are not
sympathetic but perhaps that should have been addressed when the
meeting with City and the Judge and the developer took place. I
Slow know of no latitude that I have to reject this unless I have been
misinformed tonight.
Phillip Roberts: I own that landlocked lot there. I am just reiterating. I don't
know how it could be that a road could be back there but I am just
saying if it could be done, I wish it would be done. The only
other suggestion I have about it is, this is off the wall, but
there would be a lot of relief in setbacks and space to put things
if you went to four units per building and have less buildings it
would just put things further apart. I think that would be an area
of latitude that would make it so you could get more open land or
get things further apart.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Downes, would there be any possibility of putting 83 units in
a fewer number of buildings. Would that give you some more
latitude in addressing issues like street width, sidewalks and
health, safety and welfare issues like that?
Mr. Nagy: Let me answer that. Mr. Downes did prepare a plan with four units
and it was rejected on the basis that it was felt that this was a
superior design. The scale of a three-unit building was a better
scale with the typical detached single family home in the area as
opposed to the four-unit cluster. The scales of the buildings
would be lower. The other issue was one of garages. As you see on
the rendering if you have four units in a row, then you have the
tightness of at least two, sometimes three, garages facing directly
fir.
11685
out on the road. With the three-unit cluster you can then have the
ends so the garage doors don't front on the street. It was an
aesthetic consideration. That is what it came down to. To answer
the gentleman's question and your question, true clustering them
together you get more open space. It was one of the options but in
pursuing all the options, the settlement was on 28 units not more
r`.,, than three to a cluster.
Mr. Engebretson: John, you are referring to the Council rejecting it in the
negotiation?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mrs. Robert Ostander, 15400 Harrison: I have two questions. One has to do with I
would like it made clear, in every day terminology, layman
language, why, this is all in the past, but I want to know why when
that property was sold to the current owner, when it had originally
been planned as part of a drive-thru from Five Mile into that
property with Spiro, when that sale took place, when he decided he
didn't want that property and he sold it, I want to know where was
someone responsible to see that this thing was stopped at that
point because Spiro had access. The new land owner did not, except
coming in off these residential streets. I would like to know
where the fault was at that time? The other question I have is why
is Roycroft a no, no? We have two access areas. Why is Roycroft
left free and clear? Why is that not funneled into this so there
would be three roads going into that property? Those are my
questions. Thank you.
Mr. Nagy: Rightly or wrongly, when the City was first persuaded to rezone
that property from the public land zoning classification to the
;` housing for the elderly and the office classification, Mr. Spiro
was the abutting property owner and at that time persuaded the City
to rezone the property for the elderly and the office so he could
expand on his convalescent home. The City was persuaded and
rezoned the property accordingly. By law you cannot enter into
contract zoning. You have to make a decision whether it is good
zoning or bad zoning regardless of whether Mr. Spiro or whoever
develops it. You cannot say it is good for Mr. Spiro but no good
for anyone else. You have to make a correct land use decision
regardless of who builds it or when it is built whether it is
appropriate or inappropriate. Admittedly we were persuaded by Mr.
Spiro but when he left the scene we were then left with the zoning.
You can't enter contract zoning and then jerk the zoning away.
That is prohibited by law. In trying to come to a settlement on
this lawsuit, the issue of traffic was one of the most paramount
concerns in trying to settle our dispute. There was a real honest
attempt to try to equitably distrubute the traffic in the area with
trying to get traffic on Harrison, Roycroft and Rayburn so no one
street or area share all the traffic but in doing so, we didn't
want to make a straight roadway pattern through the entire site.
We wanted to make it as indirect as possible so as to deter, to the
extent possible, through traffic in the area. One of the issues
was if the intersection of Five Mile and Middlebelt were to be
11686
congested, people then could shoot through this area, go up
Harrison, go through the site, take Roycroft or Rayburn out to
Middlebelt, or vice versa. So we tried to make it indirect to
discourage through traffic. That is why the road pattern is as
circuitous as you see with these cul-de-sacs. It is to allow
ingress and egress to both sides of the property. To share the
`.. traffic but not have a direct shot through there. If we were to
run the road from Roycroft directly into the property, we felt that
would be too direct. Plus Roycroft is unimproved as the lady said.
It is a gravel road. That is why Rayburn was selected because it
is a paved road but we ended it with a cul-de-sac so we have
deliberately tried to make it as indirect as possible. That is the
rationale behind it, right or wrong.
Ms. Eickhoff: Just a couple more things, Mr. Nagy keeps referring to the lawsuit
and if memory serves me this was settled out of Court. Supposedly
we agreed to this by virtue of a few neighbors. I don't know if
any of the Commission was here the night that happened but I know
Mr. Nagy was here, the City attorney was here, and the Mayor was
here. It was the Mayor's attempt to put some site plans in front
of the people and he said pick one because otherwise we are going
to go to Court and lose and you are going to get 103 condominiums.
Basically that was what it amounted to. Right or wrong those few
kind of wavered back and forth on what was here. In talking, out
of all the neighbors that live in this area, there were 30 people.
His letter did not say there was going to be any vote. He did not
state that he wanted to find a way to settle this suit. He didn't
say there was going to be any kind of vote just you might want to
come in and have a discussion on it and the next thing you know he
is taking a vote of the 30 people that showed up so part of them
agreed to this and part of them agreed to the one development that
I described that had homes at the end of Roycroft and Rayburn. Now
if that was acceptable that night, I don't know why it is not
acceptable now. They presented it that night as being an
acceptable proposal with putting 8 homes at the end of Rayburn and
8 at the end of Roycroft and a cul-de-sac and the rest of that
would have been cluster homes and would not have opened the street
and would have eliminated a lot of traffic problems and would also
have eliminated the problem with a through access here where there
would otherwise be a need to worry about sidewalks. They just
decided that because something like 18 people decided we should
have it this way, that was what it was going to be. I disagreed
with them and I disagree with them now. I still think they can
develop this the other way. Another thing I question is what about
the ecology standpoint? Are we going to strip this property bare?
Is he going to try and leave some of the trees that are already
existing in there? There is a lot of wildlife that lives in that
field. I think doing this the way he is doing is not even in the
best interest of the people that you are hoping to have buy this.
I just am so upset with the whole thing. To be told the Court
decided we should do this and we have been told we have to do that,
when they had before them, and Mr. Nagy knows they had before them,
a site plan that divided this property and put homes at one end and
the rest of the development at another and it would have eliminated
rr..
11687
a lot of problems. This same concept is still being shoved down
our throat. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions and as
we get into this more, a lot more surprises that will pop up.
Mr. Engebretson: John, I wasn't at that meeting. I don't think anyone from the
Commission was.
ter.
Mr. Nagy: It was an advisory hearing that the Mayor had with interested area
residents and a couple of members of the Council came in.
Councilman Taylor and Councilman Feenstra were in attendance. It
was a hearing at the Mayor's direction to meet with affected
homeowners to air the matter. With respect to this fact that this
was a settlement, maybe Planning Commissioner McCann can help me
here, he could talk with more expertise that I can, but once a
lawsuit is commenced, even though the parties to the dispute agree
to something, it is still in the hands of the Judge. The Judge has
to consent to dismissing the case and the Judge in consenting to
that, enters into a Consent Judgment and this, in fact, was a
lawsuit that had been adjudicated. The parties went into a binding
agreement and the Judge puts it into a Consent Decree and the
parties to the dispute are now bound by that decree. Rightly or
wrongly, we agreed on that plan and that is the way it is.
Mr. Engebretson: John, just so there is not any misunderstanding, we agreed on
that specific plan without sidewalks, with 28 foot wide streets and
with all the things the residents are concerned about?
Mr. Nagy: We agreed to that plan in concept with respect to the 83 units, the
road pattern, the heights of the buildings and the number of
buildings. With respect to the other site standards, off-street
parking, etc. , those kind of standards are bound by our ordinances.
You have the flexibility to require sidewalks if in your judgment
N'"' they are needed. If there is inadequate off-street parking in your
judgment, and you want more off-street parking, you have the right
to do that. You have the right to do that pursuant to your
ordinance but in concept that is the plan. .
Mr. Engebretson: Would our young attorney like to comment on that?
Mr. McCann: I think Mr. Nagy probably went to law school by that last
dissertation. That was very good. In effect, we had an agreement.
We must follow it. It is my feeling all along there are certain
things, especially with health, safety and welfare, which I believe
sidewalks are a very critical part of, that some of the additional
items that were not specifically listed in the agreement, therefore
they are, for the purposes of tonight's hearing, negotiable and if
the plan doesn't come up to the health, safety, welfare and the
other items we discussed, we do have a right to deny.
Mr. Engebretson: John, does this go on to the Council regardless of which way we
go tonight? The Council will make a final decision on this.
Bill Paschen, 29010 Rayburn: I thought I heard a few minutes ago that there could
be 83 or less units. What did the other plan give exactly for
units? Do you recall? It was very close to what you had.
11688
Mr. Nagy: All plans came up with 83 units. It was the combination. Some
were going to have single family lots. Some were going to have the
three-unit clusters. Some were going to have all clusters but
there were going to be some fours and some threes. All plans, the
final number that was resolved and we started with 123, 103, 98 and
finally got to a point of 83 and that seemed to be the point we
`�. settled at.
Mr. Paschen: I think the discussion is how did we get to 83. I hate to beat a
dead dog here. If we are beating a dead dog, what are we all doing
here? You are trying to explain to us how we can't back out of
this plan but you are talking about the same number of units so why
can't there be a reversal and close that street off like people
would be happy with? If I go back to that first night, that is a
very sore subject. There were very few people here. We shouldn't
have been put in that position at all. That is a very sore subject
to everyone in that neighborhood so why couldn't there be some
consideration for us for a change and try to get something we all
agree on? The whole issue is the number of units. If it meets the
specifications the other way then why doesn't somebody do it to
stop all the haggling over this thing? Is there no reversal on
this gentlemen? None at all?
Mr. Engebretson: What about it Mr. McCann, from a legal point of view?
Mr. McCann: From a legal point of view, they have an enforceable judgment. We
can always negotiate with the developers. Just because there is a
judgment in there, we could discuss it with the developers, but
should they pursue it with the Court, the Court would probably
affirm the judgment that has already been entered unless we could
show good cause why at the time we did it.
Mr. Paschen: Didn't the City go to the Court with this plan?
Mr. Nagy: It was acceptable to the City.
Mr. Paschen: Now we come back to my point. Why are we beating a dead dog? I
guess if we were sold down the river to begin with, there is no
need to be here.
Mr. Engebretson: There are some issues, if you are listening sir. You have heard
in the past three or four minutes that whereas there is a Court
order that directs this property to be developed with 83 cluster
units on it, you have heard also there are some things that can be
discussed and implemented to promote the health, safety and welfare
issues of the community, such as sidewalks. It is not exactly as
if we are accomplishing nothing here tonight.
Mr. Paschen: What are we going to accomplish?
Mr. Engebretson: Let's see what happens. The public hearing isn't closed yet.
Mr. Paschen: What are your positions?
11689
Mr. Engebretson: You will find out. You have heard an attorney say this developer
has an enforceable Court order so we don't have the authority to
overturn that Court order.
Mr. Paschen: I also heard him say it's not a fact that it is in cement either.
Didn't you say it was something that could be negotiated, something
'�. that could be changed?
Mr. McCann: What I am saying is any time the developer changed his mind and
agreed, we could come up with an alternative plan should the
developer agree to it. Just because there is a Court order saying
this, we don't have to follow this if the developer came to us and
said I would like to do this and changed his plan and we agreed to
it. That is a possibility. However, if the developer wanted to
keep this plan, he could ask the Court to enforce it.
Mr. Paschen: Suppose the City says the streets aren't wide enough and there
aren't any sidewalks. Does that consider the other plan and make
it reasonable and make it worthwhile to everybody.
Mr. Engebretson: It may. Be sure you attend the Council's hearing on this and
make sure you let them know how you feel.
Mrs. Ostander: The only thing I was going to mention, too, was the fact
that what you are saying is the developer has the right to put 83
units in. That is a foregone conclusion, but you people also have
some rights here to insist on sidewalks and wider roads and maybe
more ample whatever and that might put the developer in a spot
where he might say I don't want to do this much, we don't have
room, we will go to less homes. That can also be an outcome right?
Mr. Engebretson: I think you are exactly right.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-5-2-14 closed.
Mr. McCann: We can't force them to do anything else. We can do things that are
within reason that the City has a viable interest in such as
sidewalks, which, and again I am not privy to this action, I don't
know what the side agreements were, whether they were listed or
not, but from what I understand it is with the City's health,
safety and welfare to put in sidewalks. It wasn't made a part of
the judgment either way, therefore it is an item that we do have
some say on.
Mr. Gniewek: Just another point so the people here will understand. The
Planning Commission, all we are is a recommending board. Whatever
we say here tonight, whether we vote for or against it, the Council
can go either one way or the other. If we vote against it tonight
and the Council feels they have to uphold the Court action, they
can go ahead and overturn our decision at this point in time. All
we are is a recommending board. We can recommend the sidewalks and
we can recommend a lot of other things. We can recommend no thru
traffic signs but when it gets to the Council, the Council decides
11690
and maybe they won't go along with those ideas. They can overturn
any recommendation we make. We are just a recommending board. We
are a fact finding board and present them a case and they look at
it and then they make the final decision so all your comments you
make here this evening should be brought up again at their meeting.
`... Mr. Engebretson: I will add that all the comments they made here tonight are a
part of the public record and they will go on to the Council. That
is not to say that you shouldn't go and express your comments in
person. There are three things that can happen tonight. The
Planning Commission can recommend approval of this plan either as
is or with some possible changes, such as the sidewalks. The
Planning Commission can recommend that it be denied for various
reasons or it is possible that it could be tabled for further
discussion to try to work some of these issues out. Those are the
three things that can happen. Mr. Downes did you want to say
something more?
Mr. Downes: I would like to add one last thing. The Consent Judgment covers
certain specific areas. The most important areas, concept and
numbers. It covers the general types because the floor plans were
involved. We still are bound for the most part, unless they are in
opposition to what the Consent Judgment says, we still are bound to
abide with the zoning ordinances and I don't think there is any
dispute on that part. We are still bound to abide by the zoning
ordinance except where R-2 would allow 60, we are allowed 83. That
is covered by the Consent. Anything that is not covered by the
Consent, we are still bound by the zoning ordinance. The same
thing has to do with engineering. We are still bound with
engineering. We are required, for example, to put stop signs at
both end of the street. That is part of the City's engineering
ordinance so we are still bound by those particular points of the
Nft" ordinance.
Mr. LaPine: John, are we bound by the Consent Agreement about the road? There
seems to be a lot of problems here with this traffic coming off
Rayburn. What if we eliminated the Rayburn exit and just had a
loop road so they could come and go only one way from Rayburn.
Is that something we can change or does the Judge say you have to
have the two roads?
Mr. Nagy: The road pattern has to be adhered to.
Mr. LaPine: We have no choice. That is part of the thing they said you have to
have the roads the way they are, so that eliminates that situation.
Mr. Engebretson: It is a complicated issue and we need to deal with it in one of
the three ways. I am looking for a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 18,
1991 on Petition 91-5-2-14 by Michael S. Downes & Assoc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct a single family cluster development on
�rv-
11691
the west side of Harrison between Five Mile and Broadmoor in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 91-5-2-14 until the Study Meeting of August
13, 1991.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
`lour 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: Tent, Kluver, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
#6-101-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 18,
1991 on Petition 91-5-2-14 by Michael S. Downes & Assoc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct a single family cluster development on
the west side of Harrison between Five Mile and Broadmoor in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-5-2-14 be denied for the
following reasons:
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
Zoning Ordinance #543.
`r ►
2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed use will place an unfair traffic burden on the
local roads giving access to the subject land area.
4) That the proposal will not promote the health, safety and general
welfare of its residents because of the lack of pedestrian
sidewalks.
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: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Morrow, Vyhlanek, Engebretson
NAYS: Kluver, LaPine
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
11692
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-5-2-15 by Trerice Tosto Management Co. requesting waiver use approval
to operate an automobile collision repair shop within a portion of an
existing building located on the west side of Belden Court north of
Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28.
vim,,. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Division of Fire stating they have no
objection to this proposal, however, if the adjoining tenant is of
a different use group, a 3 hr. fire separation wall will be
required along with an automatic fire suppression system to the
spray booth.
A letter is also in our file from the Traffic Bureau stating 1) Per
the site plan, we find 11 parking places. Two of the 11 will be
eliminated due to their placement in front of exit doors. 2) No
storage area is shown for vehicles waiting repair. This area
should be fenced. 3) No dumpster area is shown. 4) No location
for discarded damaged auto parts.
We have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. Deficient Parking. If the standard formula of two spaces per
bay and one for each employee is utilized, 16 spaces are required -
12 are provided - deficient 4 spaces. However, the formula may not
accurately represent the true picture at this particular location.
All of the buildings on the west side of Belden Court are under the
provision of a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals which
``aw allowed 15' rear yards. There is not sufficient space in the rear
yard for a car to park and a lane for traffic to pass through. The
Board further conditioned that there "Be no parking in the front
yard areas," and "That there should be no outside storage on these
parcels at any time." The Planning Commission took note of these
requirements when they approved the waiver use for auto repairs in
the south end of this building. The parking situation is further
complicated in that the waiver use requirements call for the lot to
be fenced, and, fencing the side yard would render this parking and
the parking for the building to the north unusable as they are
served by a common drive. 2. The proposed paint spray booth will
require certification from the Wayne County Department of Public
Health Air Pollution Control Division.
A copy of this report was furnished to the petitioner to clarify
the matter of the particular layout to determine the number of
bays. A new plan was prepared and submitted to the Ordinance
Enforcement Division requesting a new letter based upon the revised
floor plan. We did receive a new report at five o'clock this
afternoon. They indicated they needed additional time to evaluate
the new floor plan. I have nothing further to add other than there
has been a revised floor plan to try and clarify some of the issues
raised by the Ordinance Enforcement but again that division needs
additional time to prepare their analysis.
11693
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Pam Kline, representing Trerice Tosto Management Co. , 32100 Telegraph Road,
Birmingham: We act as managing agent for the owner, Prudential Insurance
Company and basically the reason for this request is the adjacent
tenant, who is now a lease tenant, is of the same use and has been
granted a waiver for the type of use that has existed in this
building. They also are affiliated with the proposed tenant and
they are a sister company so they will be working together. No
outside storage is required by the tenant and it will be
specifically listed in the lease that outside storage is prohibited
by the owner. We foresee no problem with that.
Dan Buchan, 37850 Grantland: Gentlemen, I wish to state that there will be no
outside storage of wrecked or damaged or junk vehicles of any sort
and my background in management and business dictates that of a
clean professional image that I have always maintained in any
position that I have held and it will carry over into this line as
well.
Mr. LaPine: How many vehicles will you be able to have inside the building at
any one time?
Mr. Buchan: I have three basic work areas. I will employ only three auto body
repairmen. The paint booth is separate and the frame machine will
be separate areas. They will not be ongoing work areas at one
time. The three gentlemen that will be repairing the vehicles will
ultimately vacate that area they were working in, take it to the
other area, do the repair they need and then once the vehicle is
finished, it will go to a taping area and then be painted.
\. Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me you could have three vehicles that they could be
working on the body, you could have one vehicle on straightening
the body and conceivably one could be in the paint booth. You have
five vehicles that conceivably could be in this building at one
time?
Mr. Buchan: No. There would be more than that. There would be six vehicles
abreast along the south wall and one in each staging area. In
other words, in the auto body business you would have vehicles that
would be in various stages of repair.
Mr. LaPine: How many vehicles could you have inside the building at any one
time?
Mr. Buchan: I estimate in the area of 14 to 15 vehicles.
Mr. LaPine: If at any one time you have more than 14 vehicles, if anybody else
came in with any damaged vehicles, you couldn't accept them.
Mr. Buchan: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: We don't want to see two or three damaged cars waiting outside and
your argument could be that tomorrow you are getting rid of three
cars so then I could bring three cars in. That is what I want to
understand. There will be no more than 14 cars inside the building
at any one time.
11694
Mr. Buchan: Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Kluver: If you had a maximum of 14 vehicles inside your shop in various
stages of reconstruction and repair, how would you handle your
replacement parts?
Mr. Buchan: There will be a purveyor that will come in and take away the
damaged metal and also that storage area is behind the paint booth
near the back overhead door. It is not shown on the site plan now
but there will be a rolling dumpster there that we can put those
things into.
Mr. Kluver: Internally?
Mr. Buchan: Yes internally. Inside the building. There will be no outside
storage.
Mr. Vyhnalek: According to Mr. Nagy, you have 11 parking spaces, 2 are to be
removed to avoid the exit doors, that leaves 9, and you have 3
employees and 1 for yourself, you are down to 5 parking spaces. We
have had so many repair shops throughout the years that have had so
many cars stacked because of the delay in parts or people not
picking them up right away and they have to store them someplace.
What do you do if you have a car finished and Joe public is out of
town and can't pick it up? What do you do with that car? It is
all done and it is costing you money to leave it sit inside?
Mr. Buchan: The aisleways are 16 feet wide inside the building. The entire
layout of the area was designed to keep in mind a clean, safe work
environment and overnight the vehicles will be stored in there and
pulled out the next morning. Fourteen vehicles can be in the
building at the same time.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Doesn't that get a little tight?
Mr. Buchan: No sir. This is a very large facility.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Every bump shop I have been to there are always a bunch of cars
waiting outside. That is my only concern.
Mr. Kluver: Do you do insurance business?
Mr. Buchan: Yes.
Mr. Kluver: Is it exclusively insurance?
Mr. Buchan: No it is not. Between 60% to 70% is insurance business. I am
currently affiliated with the Triple A Livonia Claims Office,
Citizens and State Farm. Yesterday I picked up the Wayne County
Sheriff's Department. I will be on an open business with them. I
have Livonia Chrysler Plymouth and I am currently talking with Bill
Brown Ford.
11695
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, a revised site plan has been submitted and you said the
Inspection Department has it and they were looking at it. Have we
taken a look at it as far as the staff is concerned, and would you
comment on it?
"%ow Mr. Nagy: It is a floor plan not a site plan. It is trying to get more
specificity to the way that internal operations of the building are
handled to determine how many actual booths are there where cars
can be worked on and that kind of thing so we can properly evaluate
the outside of the property for off-street parking.
Mr. Tent: The internal part of the building that they have indicated they can
store 14 vehicles, they have wide aisles, have we looked at all of
that and does that meet the ordinance?
Mr. Nagy: Yes we have looked at that and we agree with his findings in terms
of the capacity of that building to accommodate the cars he
indicates.
Mr. Tent: Then in the opinion of our staff this property is adequate to go
ahead and function as they request?
Mr. Nagy: It meets the standards of our ordinance but it is your decision to
make as far as the capacity of the site. With respect to the
technical requirements of our ordinance, we are satisfied there is
compliance but the final decision as to zoning ordinance compliance
is still with our Inspection Department.
Mr. Tent: Is there anything within this proposal that would have to go to the
ZBA?
Mr. Nagy: We have a report right now from the Inspection Department that says
there is lack of compliance. Unless there is a new report that
withdraws the original findings, they would go to the ZBA. That is
the basis for the new report. On the record right now there are
deficiencies and we are trying to get the agency that determines
those deficiencies say they are still deficient or, based upon the
new plan, they are no longer deficient.
Mr. Tent: What we are gathering now is information so in reality we couldn't
act on this until we get that report.
Mr. Engebretson: Ray, I think what Mr. Nagy said earlier was that the new plan to
deal with the deficiencies was submitted at five o'clock today.
The report that is on record stands but it will probably be
modified based on the plans that were submitted.
Mr. Nagy: The only thing I would say in defense of the petitioner, the plan
was not submitted today at five o'clock. The plan was submitted
early last week, Wednesday or Thursday. The Inspection Department
only today at five o'clock advised us they would not have a report
to us. They needed additional time.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Would you explain to me what the south half of this building is
used for?
11696
Mr. Buchan: It is presently being leased by Motion Automotive. They repair
vehicles mechanically and they work in conjunction with me in that
my facility won't be doing air conditioning or making repairs. We
work hand in hand principally through the insurance companies.
`— Mr. Vyhnalek: There is no doorway between you?
Mr. Buchan: No there is no doorway.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You understood about the fire protection?
Mr. Buchan: Yes and the paint booth will be constructed by a licensed
individual and will comply with all health requirements. They have
already been contacted and we are simply waiting for the variance
approval before I go any further.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Your representative said something about some insurance company at
first?
Mr. Kline: The owner of the building, the landlord, is Prudential Insurance
Company.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, the present waiver that does exist in that particular
building, would not allow for any body repairs. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: I don't think that is correct. What it would not allow is the
outside storage.
Mr. Gniewek: We have determined that because this petition does auto body work
it would not be allowed to locate in the south half of the building
Nur as opposed to body work.
Mr. Nagy: I thought you meant the overall waiver that was granted by the
Zoning Board with respect to the front yard setbacks.
Mr. Gniewek: No the waiver that was granted for the use of the south half.
Mr. Nagy: Yes you are correct. It would not allow any body repair.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Buchan, in a few sentences give us a perspective of your
experience in this field.
Mr. Buchan: I was the individual who at Budget Rent A Car for the past few
years turned back all the vehicles to Ford Motor Company through
their program and I also disposed of the vehicles through auctions
throughout the United States so I was active in working with the
body people. I have no body shop experience hands on but I have
the management capabilities to put this together and see things
will work as they should. All of my management background is in
the restaurant business so cleanliness and image is a great concern
to me so I can assure you that it will be a plus to the community.
It is not something that will be an eyesore.
11697
Mr. Kluver: Is this a franchise operation or solely owned by you?
Mr. Buchan: It is solely owned by me.
Priscilla Hunter, 34902 Standish: I am real concerned about a number of things
"Nom' with him going in there. Noise and pollution is one of our great
problems. We get a tremendous amount of pollution from all the
industry around as it is. I wake up every morning and I have black
soot all over my pool, all over my patio furniture, all over
everything. We need no more. This Motion Automotive that they are
going to be in conjunction with, we thought that Ford Motor Company
had opened up their track again. They have not opened up their
track but Motion Automotive has. They are racing cars up and down
Belden Court. We have had to call the police many times. There is
a lot of dumpster noise, a lot of car noise, a lot of pollution.
We don't need any more down there. There are alarms going off all
hours of the night. We have too much noise. During the day all
kinds of PA systems from Bill Brown and from the Volkswagon
dealership. We don't need any more. We have enough. We don't
want any more automotive. There is a track down at the end of
Belden Park that is being used. People come from all over to use
this track. It is motorcycles, dirt bikes, etc. We can hear them
running all the time. Now we have Motion Automotive racing their
cars. We used to have Ford Motor Company racing around their test
track but they were there when we moved in. These people have not
been there and we do not want them. We don't want any more trash
outside. We don't want any more dumpsters. We are fed up. We
have Budget Rent A Car, which he was affiliated with. Now they
have all their employees parking on Boston Post because they have
no room for their employees to park. What are you people doing for
o�.. all of us who live in this small subdivision? You are just making
it impossible for us to live anymore. Please help us.
Cheryl Groves, 11701 Boston Post: I am the President of Alden Village. We do have
a similar facility to what this gentleman is proposing. It is
called Livonia Collision. It is at 12331 Stark Road. Two years
ago June we were also here for this gentleman. He put in a 7 foot
wall as a buffer. We still have noise. He was supposed to have a
dumpster within the facility. He doesn't have the room, therefore,
it goes outside. It stays outside. Cars, they paint them. It
gets hot in there in the summer. We understand that but the cars
have been brought outside to dry or are brought outside to grind.
This building is closer to our homes but it is still noise. We
don't want any more noise. With that Court we have more problems
to call the police on. It is ridiculous. We shouldn't have to
patrol it and go over there and find out what is going on. It
would be different if it was a good neighbor policy. We even went
to bat for them and fought for them because the owner was going to
make them move. I don't want the facility here because it affects
quite a few of our homes and there is going to be noise. Even if
it is fenced in, you already have them stealing cars from Bill
Brown. If there is even one vehicle left out there, it is a risk
and no one will be there to protect them. We don't want the
11698
responsibility. We knew when we moved here, that you would have
the noise, that you would have industry but not like we have.
Industry and residential can work together so long but when they
make promises they can't keep, then unfortunately when someone
comes along like this gentleman here that wants to put this
business in, we don't want to be their neighbors anymore. We don't
want them there.
Mr. Engebretson: What was the business you were referring to that was working
outside?
Ms. Groves: Livonia Collision, 12331 Stark Road. There was also the school
that worked outside.
Mr. Morrow: I was at that hearing. If I remember correctly, he indicated that
there would be no outside storage. There would be no junk cars or
cars in various states of repair stored outside and all work would
be done inside. You must also remember we hear a lot of promises
that are not kept as it relates to outside storage of vehicles.
Ms. Groves: We have to live with them.
Mr. Tent: What Ms. Groves said was quite interesting because it is a problem
in the area and these petitioners that come before us, if they
don't abide by the resolutions, something should be done. I am
going to ask Mr. Nagy to alert the Ordinance Enforcement Division
about the conditions there and give us a report at the next study
meeting. Let them know we are concerned. I too remember the
meeting when they indicated they would not do any outside work.
John O'Connor, 34965 Wadsworth: I am real close. I am right along the wall there.
I don't have a lot of problems with Bill Brown when they page
during the day because I work but I do catch them occasionally when
I come home for lunch and they will be paging the porter and there
is a lot of noise. I happen to know Dan, who is petitioning for
this, but the way it was zoned it was set up not to have a body
shop and the association agreed and I think that is what they
should stand by. Once it starts, it is not going to stop and there
are a lot of vacant buildings there. We have a nice little quiet
neighborhood. There is a lot of trash that comes over from the
dumpsters and what not. We would just like to keep it that way.
We are not asking for a lot. We would just like them to abide by
the zoning.
Ms. Hunter: Sixty percent of the business is insurance, what is the other forty
percent?
Mr. Buchan: Private. I have a very low percentage that is off the street. I
am not looking for a lot of that business. What I am looking for
is a lot of newer model vehicles. You won't be seeing 57's or
62's.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-5-2-15 closed.
fir.
11699
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#6-102-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 18,
1991 on Petition 91-5-2-15 by Trerice Tosto Management Co. requesting
waiver use approval to operate an automobile collision repair shop.
within a portion of an existing building located on the west side of
Belden Court north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 91-5-2-15 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 16.11
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 11543.
2) That the subject site does not have the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is not compatible to the balance of the uses
within the Belden Court Industrial Subdivision in that the prospect
of having damaged vehicles, auto parts, wreckers, etc. present on
the subject site is contrary to the light industrial usage with
limited outside storage sought to be preserved in the typical
industrial subdivision in the City of Livonia.
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.
'Nr.► Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to support the denying resolution not because I think
the gentleman doesn't have a good business plan but I think the
neighbors' interest transcends that business opportunity and I
would hope that you would find a better place to locate your
business in Livonia if this process should fail to deliver this
capability to you.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition
91-5-2-16 by Richard Gergis for Drugland requesting waiver use approval
to utilize SDD & SDM licenses within an existing building located on the
southeast corner of Middlebelt and St. Martins Avenue in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have 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 Division of Fire stating their office
has no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter
from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or
`or.-
11700
problems were found. A letter from the Traffic Bureau states 1) No
landscaping is shown along Middlebelt. When this is turned in, a
30 foot clear sight distance will have to be allowed for the
sidewalk. 2) The plan also does not show what even signage this
building will have. This will also have to be considered in the
`4i"' clear sight distance.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Richard Gergis: I am the owner of the business previously known as Drugland, now
it is Livonia Foods, and I intend to move this store from where it
is simply because we have had a lot of accidents in front of our
location. Our location does not have adequate parking. We have
the fire station across the street from us. We have a traffic
light that is always green and the traffic, once it takes off on
Seven Mile, by the time they are by our store they are going about
35 mph and they can't come into the store. For that reason we lost
a lot of money. I have been in that particular location for three
years. I lost a lot of money, big money. I can't stay in business
where I am. I own the building and it is for sale. We are moving
into a smaller unit. We now occupy 8400 square feet and we don't
even do $600 or $700 a day of business so we can't stay in business
where we are. I went to the owners of St. Martins Plaza and
negotiated to lease from them a smaller unit, which is about 3200
square feet, and what I intend to do is to move my licenses and my
business there and operate as a family operation. Just a small
store so we can survive. Right now our light bills are $2,000 a
month. Over there we would probably pay about $600. That is why
we want to move our store.
`,, Mr. Vyhnalek: You are changing from a drugstore to a food store? You are leaving
the drug business?
Mr. Gergis: I have already done so in my location for the past year or so. I
changed the name of the store from Drugland to Livonia Foods trying
to attract more people.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What will you have in there?
Mr. Gergis: Same items that we have always had. Beer, wine and party food.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are going to have a glorified party store?
Mr. Gergis: That is right. I can't compete with Perry, Arbor. I can't compete
with K-Mart. There is no way I can stay in business as a
drugstore.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The Commissioners here have a problem. We have no problem with
another establishment within 1000 feet of your SDD but we do have
Cantoro Italian Market within 500 feet of your SDM license, which
means we can recommend to Council but we can't approve. Council is
the only one that can waive that.
11701
Mr. Gergis: The SDM which Cantoro has, he sells wholesale and retail and he
closes at six o'clock in the evening. With me the licenses that I
have, the SDD is referred to as a liquor license and the SDM is
referred to as a beer and wine. I have both of them. I am not
adding anything else in the area. I am only moving simply because
`om. of hardship.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you sold your building?
Mr. Gergis: I can't find any buyers. Nobody wants to buy that building. I
will keep it clean until I find a tenant. I will tell you
something. Ken Stabler, when he owned Drugland on the corner of
Seven Mile and Middlebelt, he was successful because it was easy in
and out across from the mall. The minute he moved it here, it
became a dead issue. There is no way any retail operation, such as
mine, can succeed in there.
Mark Morad, 29137 St. Martins: I am opposed to a liquor store and party store
going into our corner. I also am in the retail business and have
been for 21 years. I have three children and I am three houses
behind the mall. One of the reasons I am opposed to the liquor
license and beer and wine license at our corner is, and it has been
mentioned about Cantoro who is only 500 feet away, my three
children plus quite a few other children in that corner street, we
don't really need another liquor license on that corner. We don't
need the traffic at this corner either. Our street right now is
posted 25 mph but it runs anywhere from 45 to 60 mph and there are
no sidewalks so most of the kids drive up and down their driveways
and some of the older kids in the street. The other reason I am
opposed to this store being moved down there would be the increased
`r.. traffic in delivery trucks. Being in the retail business, you
would have quite a few and if business is going to increase for
this gentleman, it will increase his deliveries. I don't believe
this corner where it is right now needs another liquor store. I
believe this store, if I was the owner, I would be on the corner of
Seven Mile and Middlebelt where it originally was where he can get
his customers in and out. The parking lot is not any bigger than
the one where he is now. I don't believe the access would be any
easier. The traffic would back up and essentially go east on St.
Martins instead of going to Middlebelt.
Randy Silvernail, 29123 St. Martins: I am here to oppose it. As Mr. Morad said,
for one reason we don't need another liquor store. The second
reason Cantoros is quite a hot spot for the teenagers to go down
for a pop. The junior high and the high school are within two
blocks and the elementary school is within three blocks. I don't
want to have my children walking past a liquor store every day. It
will be a high traffic area. It is a high traffic area now
predominately because of Livonia Mall. There is a subdivision to
the north and east of us which quite frequently comes out that way
because of the convenience of the traffic light. We do have a few
hot rodders. We do have a few people that are frequenting the mall
area now that don't want to wait for a traffic light, that do come
east on St. Martins which increases the traffic area and we do have
11702
quite a few small children out there and it is our concern to
protect our children from the traffic and anything else that might
harm them. The other issue is we do have some convenience stores
up there and we are experiencing quite a bit of litter on our front
lawns. With the extent of what this man is going to sell at his
'Now party store and knowing some of the kids that frequent outside the
party stores, it is going to increase that problem in our area and
frankly we don't need it.
Mr. Gergis: I just want to say I have been in the area over three years. I
have never had any problems at all. I already have the liquor
license in that area. Furthermore, for the past 25 years I have
held several liquor licenses in and around the suburban area of
Novi, West Bloomfield, and I have never had any violations
whatsoever because I know how to handle the business of drugstores
and party stores.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-5-2-16 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
116-103-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 18,
1991 on Petition 91-5-2-16 by Richard Gergis for Drugland requesting
waiver use approval to utilize SDD & SDM licenses within an existing
building located on the southeast corner of Middlebelt and St. Martins
Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-5-2-16 be
denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 11543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 10.03(g)(1) of
the Zoning Ordinance 11543 which requires that there be a 500 foot
separation between SDM Licenses.
3) That this area of the City is currently well served with both SDM
and SDD licensed facilities.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
11543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
�..- Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
11703
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-104-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 624th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held on June 4, 1991 are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-105-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 91-5-8-9 by Michael S. Downes and Assoc.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct multi family
housing units on the north side of Seven Mile between Merriman and
Farmington Roads in Section 3, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That Site Plan 0120 Sheet 1 dated 5/6/91 prepared by Michael S.
Downes and Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2) That Building Plan 0120 Sheet 2 dated 5/6/91 prepared by Michael S.
Downes and Assoc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That Landscape Plan 67091-A dated 6/12/91 prepared by Calvin Hall
and Assoc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
`New 4) That the petitioner obtain a favorable variance for carports in the
required side yards from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
5) That this approval is subject to the petitioner obtaining proper
rezoning of the property from R-9 to R-7 zoning classification from
the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-106-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 91-5-8-10 by Gerald T. Genette requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal to construct a parking lot for the V.F.W.
Post located on the south side of Seven Mile just east of Middlebelt in
Section 12, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That parking lot plan for Livonia Post #3941-V.F.W. as revised on
6/14/91 by L. Podger is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the landscaping shown on the approved plan be installed prior
to use of the lot for parking cars.
`rr.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
11704
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-107-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
‘141.- City Council that Petition 91-6-8-11 by Jim's Microwave Communications
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning
Ordinance ##543 in connection with a proposal to install a
telecommunications satellite dish on the roof of a building located on
the south side of Seven Mile just west of I-275 in Section 7, be
approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the roof top site plan prepared by Jim's Microwave
Communications for the Tandy Corp. located at 38705 W. Seven Mile
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 625th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on June 18, 1991 was adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Raym d W. Tent, Acting Secretary
ATTEST: i t, L 11 & nen
Jack Engebretison, Chairman
jg