HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1991-03-19 11528
MINUTES OF THE 620th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
`ter.
On Tuesday, March 19, 1991, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 620th 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 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Conrad Gniewek
R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. 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. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat. 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 tonight.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
91-1-1-2 by Dave Pink and William Roskelly requesting to rezone property
located on the east side of Stonehouse Avenue between Joy Road and
Minton Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from PL to R-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
the area of the rezoning petition represents the area of the future
Stonehouse Subdivision. It is our understanding from
representatives of the Livonia Public Schools that it will be
necessary to provide a public walkway dedication between two of the
future lots to accommodate an existing walkway to the Career
Center. Provisions for this dedication should be shown on the
preliminary plat for the subdivision. We have also received a
letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this
petition, however, they do maintain overhead lines on this property
that would conflict with any construction.
Lastly, we have received a letter from Jennifer Kobane, a resident
,,` of Golden Ridge Subdivision stating: I oppose this rezoning
11529
because: I feel the area is not offered a lot of open space, very
limited for recreation for our children. Condo's and rental
apartments are now rapidly taken over the area. Westland, being to
the south of us, has shown little mercy for their residents, and
apartments abound. The walkway for high school students appears to
`.• be also vacated. My daughter and several students use this means
to walk to school. The walk lies east of Lamont and is a
continuation travelling east of Northfield. Closing this walk
would mean travelling via Joy Road. It will encourage driving, the
school board already has enough problems with that. Unfortunately,
I cannot attend this evening. I have an emergency trip to take to
England today (19th). Please consider our overabundance of
multi-dwellings and the fact that land is scarce and additional
subdivisions would not enhance the area.
Mr. Engebretson: John, would you clarify one point in that letter regarding the
vacating of that walkway. Did it appear to you that there was
concern that there would not be a walkway there?
Mr. Nagy: The first plan that was presented by the petitioner did show a
solid row of lots. It did not provide for the dedication and it
now provides for the dedication and our office has informed Mrs.
Kobane, through the mail, that a plan has been submitted to
accomodate the walkway. As I indicated, the letter was just
received today, so we will clarify that matter with Mrs. Kobane.
Mr. Morrow: It sounded to me like she was objecting to condos and/or
apartments. We are looking at an R-1 or residential zoning here
tonight. Is that a fair estimate of what she is saying?
Mr. Nagy: I think she is indicating that they already have an abundance of
Nor these.
Mr. Morrow: To me she is objecting to something that we are not looking at.
Mr. Nagy: As I indicated, we will try to clarity that.
Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come down and explain what you have in
mind.
Bill Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I am representing Mr. Pink, who presently has an
option with the School District and I am led to believe that in
return the School Board will eventually have ownership of some of
these lots for their building program. I certainly agree with Mr.
Morrow. According to that letter it appeared as though she was
referring to multiple housing rather than single family dwellings.
Perhaps she was not cognizant of the R-1 zoning class. Again, she
may have been reflecting to the portion that was just recently
changed from apartments to R-1, Mr. Ronayne's and Mr. Lendrum's
plat. Other than that, I want to address the overhead lines.
Certainly we were aware at the time the City mandated my plat, we
would beunderground with all utilities.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, does Mr. Pink own the vacant lots on the west side of
Stonehouse?
11530
Mr. Roskelly: Yes. We are in the process of that engineering and what this will
do, and I believe this is one of the reasons he solicited the
school for this property, is presently Stonehouse is being
developed in a hodge podge fashion, 100 feet here, 200 feet here.
This would be the Lendrum-Ronayne plat and two sides Stonehouse
will now be completed, certainly the first 1500 feet from Joy Road.
Mr. LaPine: According to the notes we have, when he buys this property from the
school he is going to dedicate 10 feet for widening Stonehouse.
When he develops these lots, will he pave that street at that time?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes he will. We have the engineering plans for the west side. One
of the reasons the expense of the entire improvement to Stonehouse
now comes about because hopefully with the rezoning and the
preliminary plat, he would have both sides to cut down the cost.
He presently has an option on the westerly 150 feet with 10 foot
dedicated to make Stonehouse right-of-way 60 feet rather than 50
feet. It will be 140 foot deep lots.
Mr. Tent: The public walkway that they were discussing, has that been set on
your drawings?
Mr. Roskelly: It has been addressed and it will show up when we come up with my
second issue, which is the preliminary plat, which clearly shows
the 10 foot easement which is encompassing the existing walk that
is being used.
Mr. Tent: The Crystal Pond Subdivision, you indicated it will have a
different name. Have you decided on a name yet?
Mr. Roskelly: I understand that will be called Stonehouse #1 or #2.
Francisco Orozco, 9016 Lamont: What you see there in the square in red is a great
area right now, Stonehouse Avenue as it exists right now. Building
houses there right now what we would do, we will kill all the trees
that are existing there right now. The public walkway that they
were talking about where the children go to school is a safe area
right now because Northfield is a dead end street and Lamont is a
dead end street. Opening Stonehouse Avenue you will create traffic
which will be dangerous for the kids and eventually if Stonehouse
is open all the way to Joy Road, it will be more dangerous for the
kids. I would like not to have this development built right now.
Kevin Ash, 9234 Lamont: I am opposed to the project because I back up to the site
right now and the main reason we purchased the property was the
seclusion of the land behind us. Now we are going to have a lot of
homes going up there and our seclusion is going to be gone and our
main purpose we purchased the home is going to be gone. The other
reason I am opposed is that Lamont north of Minton, all the way
south down towards Joy Road, we have no storm drainage there right
now. I feel that Stonehouse is also going to cause a problem with
surface drainage. Every time we have rain we have water in our
garage ankle deep.
Mr. Engebretson: How long have you lived there Mr. Ash?
...
11531
Mr. Ash: About three years.
Mr. Engebretson: Were you aware that property in back of you was zoned for the
construction of homes?
'— Mr. Ash: Yes I was. I was also informed that the lots were too shallow for
developing anything with the zoning the way it is now.
Mr. Roskelly: If I may address the comments about storm sewers. As you perhaps
well know for the past three years we have been dealing with
Westland, not only on Mr. Pink's property along Stonehouse as well
as the new residential sub, Stonehouse #2, and after three years of
back and forth with Westland, the developers have agreed to put in
an adequate storm sewer which has been approved by your Engineering
as well as Westland's. So with the development of this we would
certainly alleviate any storm sewer problem because in the process
of engineering it is necessary that we harness any storm water in
the back rear or on the property. It would seem to me for the
safety of children an improved road of Stonehouse could add to the
safety rather than impede the safety.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-1-1-2 closed.
Mr. Engebretson: To the people who spoke in opposition of the petition, I am going
to vote in favor of this petition and I don't want you to think for
a minute that I am being insensitive to your feelings you expressed
relative to safety and those kinds of issues. I presently have the
same problem with the building of 300 houses in my backyard and
unfortunately with privately owned property these things happen and
the property owner has the right to develop the land. I think an
orderly development will probably in the long term enhance the
neighborhood but obviously we would all prefer for good land to
stay vacant and see the trees and the squirrels but this is
progress and this is what happens with the free enterprise system
that we have. I am not insensitive to those comments that were
made but I will vote in favor of the petition.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-41-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Petition 91-1-1-2 by Dave Pink and William Roskelly
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Stonehouse
Avenue between Joy Road and Minton Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 31 from PL to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-1-1-2 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of
existing zoning in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the use of
surplus land currently owned by the Livonia Public Schools.
11532
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
.ft, #543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Because the Council has requested Mr. Roskelly's presence at
another meeting tonight, we are going to move the agenda out of
order and deal with the plat process, Preliminary Plat approval for
Stonehouse Subdivision, which is number 10 on the agenda.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Stonehouse Subdivision proposed to be located on Stonehouse
Street between Joy Road and Minton Street in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 31.
Mr. Shane 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 Fire Marshal stating they have
no objections to this development contingent upon adequate
water/hydrant supply. We have also received a letter from the
Engineering Department stating the improvement of Stonehouse Avenue
will consist of an Alternate IV type pavement similar to the street
system within the adjoining Golden Ridge Subdivision. We will
require that Stonehouse be improved north from Joy Road to Minton
Avenue including a portion of Minton and Northfield Avenues.
`_► Finally, some on-site detention of storm water may be required
based on a recent Westland-Livonia storm drainage agreement. Also
in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating it appears
to present no unusual problems. The right-of-way should be 60 feet
(as proposed). The street should be paved to a 31 foot width and
sidewalks provided. Lastly, we have received a letter from the
Department of Parks and Recreation stating they see no problems or
discrepancies with the plan as submitted.
Bill Roskelly: As I mentioned before, by virtue of this preliminary plat, we will
now create the 60 foot right-of-way for Stonehouse Avenue by virtue
of a 10 foot dedication for the right-of-way. I originally had 16
lots. In this case I have reduced it to 15 so I could provide for
the walkway to the school plus I have given it added width so if
there is any noise it will be somewhat deadened.
Mr. LaPine: Do you know what kind of homes are going to be built here?
Mr. Roskelly: I can't express or commit to the type of home as I do in my own
subs but in my conversations with Mr. Pink, he presently has a
couple of models on Joy Road, and I am sure they will be very
presentable homes, certainly to your codes in the City, and it
certainly will be an upgrade in the area. If I may point out the
School District will be, I understand, constructing some of these
11533
houses. How many, I don't know but I am sure you will have quality
workmanship and material.
Mr. Tent: You mentioned Mr. Pink is the builder. Is that correct?
441,, Mr. Roskelly: He is the developer. He has been the builder. He is in California
now. I believe his son is in the area. I cannot answer whether or
not he is going to build.
Mr. Tent: Why isn't he or one of his representatives here to answer our
questions?
Mr. Roskelly: I believe he thought that I was capable of answering your
questions.
Mr. Tent: What type of homes are they going to build? I am concerned what is
going in there. I want to know what the homes will look like.
Mr. Roskelly: I certainly agree with you Mr. Tent. In talking to Mr. Pink he
indicated that with these homes that he was attempting to stay in
the market of $110,000 to $130,000. He added that he felt as I
do, if possible, an attached garage but that was not a commitment.
Certainly there will be brick on the house but I cannot tell you
that a two-story colonial house is going to be all brick. I
suggest it would not be. On the ranch, as we quite often do, we
put brick to a belt on four sides. If somebody wants the option to
make it entirely brick, yes. I can assure you that this will be
comparable to the development that will be Stonehouse #2 or Crystal
Pond area.
Mr. Tent: But you are not the builder so you can't assure me of anything.
The thing I am concerned about at this time is the building process
going like it is everybody seems to be downgrading. These homes
may be what you say $110,000 to $130,000 and then you say we don't
have the market for that now so let's throw in something $75,000 or
$80,000. What I am looking for here for protection of the
neighborhood is a solid plan. What are you going to do there.
What kind of homes? Something pretty positive.
Mr. Roskelly: Mr. Tent, as a real estate estate professional you certainly would
agree with me when I say it is a question of the market at the time
and I agree totally with you. On the other hand, with the cost of
development and the cost of land, I can stand here and tell you
that it is literally impossible to build an inferior home. This
will be an improvement in this area. It will be up to par and
better than anything in the area and it will certainly be an
upgrade and a credit to this community in order to accomodate the
person who is not budgeted to build a $200,000 home. I feel there
is a big need in this City for a home in the area of $120,000. I
certainly don't struggle with the thought that you are going to
have any prefab frame clapboard home. Not at all sir.
Mr. Tent: I am concerned because I see nothing documenting it.
11534
Mr. Gniewek: It was indicated that some of these lots exceed R-1 zoning. You
did mention two of the lots being 70 and 80 feet. Are the rest of
the lots 60 feet by 120 feet?
Mr. Roskelly: The rest are 60 feet by 140 feet.
There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for
Stonehouse Subdivision closed.
Mr. Tent: I am going to vote against this proposal and my only reason for
voting against it, it is not the fact that I don't trust the
integrity of Mr. Roskelly, he does a great job. The thing that I
am concerned about is the builder is not here to answer these
questions. Based on that I am going to cast my negative vote on
this petition.
Mr. Gniewek: I would like to point out also to Mr. Tent that the Livonia Public
Schools are not represented this evening either and they will be
developing several of these lots. I have seen the quality that the
students have put together in the houses that they have built
throughout the City and I have no problem with voting for this
particular petition knowing the reputation of Mr. Roskelly and the
reputation of the School District. I have no problem whatsoever.
Mr. LaPine: I am going to vote against it too for the same reasons Mr. Tent has
set forth. I know Mr. Roskelly builds good subdivisions but we
have always asked that the builder tell us exactly what he is going
to build. It isn't a question that the schools build good homes.
I want to know what is going to go in there and I want to be
assured that what the builder tells me is what is going to go in
Nom. there and the only person that can make that commitment is the
builder. Therefore, I am going to vote against it too.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#3-42-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Preliminary Plat approval for Stonehouse Subdivision
proposed to be located on Stonehouse Street between Joy Road and Minton
Street in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for
Stonehouse Subdivision be approved subject to the City Council approving
the rezoning of the property under Petition 91-1-1-2 for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all of the
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That no City Department objects to the approving of this
Preliminary Plat.
3) That the Preliminary Plat represents a reasonable land use for the
subject property.
11535
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.
ftmly
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-2-1-3
by Castillo Company, Inc. for 6 property owners requesting to rezone
property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft
Road and Bentley Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 from RUF to
OS.
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 the rezoning proposal. We have also
received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objections to this petition, however, they do maintain overhead
lines on this property that would conflict with any construction.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Rodney Jackson, State Farm Insurance Company in Bloomington, Illinois: The
operation of the facility we will be putting here is an insurance
office building with an inspection area for inspecting damaged
vehicles that are driven to the site and inspected for claims. The
remainder of the building is office use for handling the claims of
policy holders. We have an existing building in the C-1 area,
which we are basically replacing with this proposed use on the
other property if we get the rezoning. Basically it is the same
use just down the street from the present one.
Mr. Engebretson: You are conducting the same business in the existing building
that you intend to do in this new facility, just expanding it?
Mr. Jackson: That is correct. It will be a little larger building. The
inspection facility will be the same capacity as the existing
office.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Jackson, with this enlarged building if you are successful with
this rezoning, do you intend to do any storage of damaged vehicles
on the property?
Mr. Jackson: It is our policy that only drivable vehicles be brought in. They
come in by appointment only to be inspected, to be given their
adjustment and then drive off. We do not store any damaged
`"' vehicles.
11536
Mr. Tent: So there would be absolutely no storage on these premises for
overnight inspections or anything of this type?
Mr. Jackson: That is correct.
vim,, Mr. Tent: How about repair work?
Mr. Jackson: No. All we do is the estimating for the damages and then the claim
is given to adjustment and he goes wherever to have his repairs
done.
Mr. Tent: Do you have normal hours for operations?
Mr. Jackson: Yes. The current hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , Monday through
Friday. We stay open until 8:00 p.m. on Thursday evenings and
there are no weekend operations.
Mr. Tent: Absolutely nothing will be done after 8:00 p.m. on the day you
specified?
Mr. Jackson: Correct. All the estimating is handled by appointment only.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Jackson, Mr. Tent asked if there was any overnight storage. Do
you have a small fleet of cars that you use for the business that
are on the north side of the property right now?
Mr. Jackson: Yes we do. We have a small number of vehicles that are used by the
estimators when they have to go out and do their estimates on
damages.
Mrs. Fandrei: How many do you have?
Mr. Jackson: I am not sure at the current facility. Twelve here.
Mrs. Fandrei: So you will have the overnight storage of that fleet?
Mr. Jackson: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: But no damaged cars?
Mr. Jackson: That is correct.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have three bays?
Mr. Jackson: Right. We plan to handle two cars per bay.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many cars run through there a day?
Mr. Jackson: I am not sure on an average.
Tom Packle, Divisional Claim Superintendent for State Farm in the Claims Operation:
I have the current existing auto operation in the Livonia Service
Center as well as the Taylor Center.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The facility you have right south of there, how many cars run
\..• through there a day?
11537
Mr. Packle: Generally there are between 20 and 40 cars a day on an appointment
basis.
Mr. Vyhnalek These are fender benders. They are drivable cars? They come in
and you write them an estimate and give them a check and they go
`, out and get it fixed wherever they want?
Mr. Packle: Exactly.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to hire additional people?
Mr. Packle: No. We have somewhat outgrown the existing two story building and
we would like to go to a one-story building with word processing
and expand our claim handling capacities a little bit but not from
an estimating standpoint.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many employees are going to be in the building?
Mr. Packle: About 65 to 70.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you still have your law firm?
Mr. Packle: No they are across the street. They were one of the casualties
from our growing pains. We will not bring them back in.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are not going to use all of the land that you petitioned for.
Is that true?
Mr. Jackson: The current site plan shows we would have some surplus property.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Looking at the plan, you had quite a bit of space between the homes
'tow and your parking space. Is that because you don't need it?
Mr. Jackson: We don't need it at this time. Maybe for the future in case there
is any growth. However, the building we are putting there is
typically the largest we like to have for a claims office.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you try to buy Lot 15?
Mr. Jackson: Not as part of this parcel because we didn't need it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is the only problem I have. If you are going to change this
RUF to OS and there is C-i below, right in between there is going
to be one RUF lot.
Mr. Jackson: We have discussed this with the homeowner and the information we
have received is he has no objection to our being located next door
to him.
Mr. LaPine: I guess my problem with the proposal is Lot 15. It seems to me
that if we are going to develop this parcel, we should have all
four lots combined as one development. My problem is Lot 15, that
homeowner in the future may sell out and then we are stuck with a
small RUF lot. If we are going to have a development there, I
would rather see it developed all four lots as one development
instead of three lots developed and in the future another lot
��"
developed.
11538
Mrs. Fandrei: As I look at the map I agree with Mr. LaPine on Lot 15. I would
prefer that we were rezoning Lots 15 and 16 and keep it equal to
the property across the street. As your proposal is we are
encroaching further north getting more office further out of what
is presently office area and looking at the residential across the
"ft. street, you are encroaching into that area. My personal opinion is
I would like to see us rezone 15 and 16 if you don't need the room,
which you are suggesting you don't, and move it south.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What are you going to do with the building you vacated?
Mr. Jackson: We plan to retain the building and use it for training purposes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: So it will stay in State Farm's hands?
Mr. Jackson: Yes it will.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is another good reason why Lot 15 should be involved in your
overall scheme.
Richard Webber, 14200 Beatrice: I oppose this development because of the openness
that we have had for many, many years. I also feel that it will
create more traffic on Middlebelt. It will also increase the noise
and I do not relish the fact of having the possibility of a
dumpster or parking lot kitty-corner to my backyard. When I look
out my back porch I would like to be able to see some trees. I do
know there is a law that requires them to put up a fence. However,
you can see over the elevation of the homes. When they built the
American House in back of me, that was considerably higher than my
lot and that sticks out like a sore thumb. In fact, I have had
problems with my drainage there and with the help of the City and
__ the developers, they gave me extra dirt for my backyard. I don't
want to have to go through that again. I do wish you would take
this into consideration and vote against this.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Webber, quite often we are faced with rezonings to R-9. Other
than what you mentioned about drainage, how has your neighborhood
co-existed with the R-9 behind you.
Mr. Webber: Actually very good. The senior citizens have been very helpful. I
happen to have that pathway that goes behind my house so I not only
live on Beatrice but I get the streetlights that come in there. I
also have this pathway, which the residents and visitors utilize at
the American House and I get streetlights directly in my backyard.
Of course I live on the street and I seem to get a little more
traffic and I don't appreciate getting any additional traffic.
Mr. Morrow: By and large it does not have a big impact on the neighborhood
except for what you just mentioned.
Mr. Webber: No, except when they have the big excursions and we have people
parking on the property right up to our fences several times a
year.
11539
Brian Harris, 14010 Beatrice: In addition to what the previous gentleman has said
about having the openness, which is one reason why I purchased the
home, I am concerned what will happen then with Lot 15 in between
in the meantime. I am opposed to the proposal.
`vow David Baines, 14108 Beatrice: My concern again is for the openness and I would
like to know will the residents of Beatrice have a site plan of how
State Farm plans to develop the area? Exactly where the building
is going to go? Again, I appreciate the vast difference that is
between my backyard and Middlebelt Road and I am neither opposed or
in favor of the OS rezoning but I have concern about how the
building is going to be located on the property and how much space
is going to be used up to my fence line at the back of my house,
what landscaping is going to be done before and after the
construction and how everything is going to be situated.
Mr. Engebretson: All of those concerns will be addressed at a separate meeting if
the zoning request is successful here and with the City Council.
It is a long process. After that would be site plan and you would
have input. Then we would address the positioning of the building,
the parking lots, the ingress and egress, the landscaping, etc.
Unfortunately those issues are not on the table tonight.
Peter Ventura, Ventura Properties located in Farmington Hills: We represent the
sellers of this property to State Farm. Having overheard your
concerns with regard to Lot 15, I don't know if I can offer hearsay
evidence or not but the property is owned by a gentlemen by the
name of Burnside who a number of years ago sold the property which
is currently zoned C-1 to State Farm where they currently have
their building. In speaking to Mr. Burnside and trying to
incorporate his property into the site plan, he is desirous of not
"`r selling it at the present time. He is an elderly gentleman and has
expressed his desire to remain at that location for the foreseeable
future. It is not a lack of attempt on State Farm's part to make
him part of this. It is his desire at his advanced age not to be
forced to move.
Mr. Jackson: Something I would like to address with concerns about the site
plan, and as you mentioned, those will be taken care of at future
hearings if the zoning is approved. Something I would like to make
known is State Farm's intention when we do our office buildings,
especially when they are adjacent to residential areas, we are very
sensitive to these areas and provide perhaps even little more
landscaping and dress it up a little better to help make it a more
pleasant site and to reduce the impact of an office building next
to a residential area. The other issue, the traffic along
Middlebelt. I am not real familiar with the area but in driving up
and down Middlebelt today, it is a fairly heavily travelled road
and the traffic generated by the State Farm office being put there
should be minimal compared to the existing traffic loads on the
road and, if necessary to support this, we would be willing to look
into a traffic study and comparison to back this up if necessary.
Mr. Kluver: The current building which you currently operate your facility out
of, is that a leased facility or are you the sole owner of that
building?
11540
Mr. Jackson: We are the owner of that building.
Mr. Kluver: If you are successful in getting the rezoning, what is your
intention with that existing facility?
Mr. Jackson: We would be retaining the building and using it for a training
facility.
Mr. Kluver: You would keep the facility?
Mr. Jackson: Yes we would.
Mrs. Fandrei: How far into Lot 18 would you be utilizing for your building and
your parking?
Mr. Jackson: Almost half way in so the two lots would not be enough to handle
the facility. That is why we needed the third parcel.
Mrs. Fandrei: You expressed earlier that you didn't need as much as you are
asking for rezoning for. I was just interested in knowing
approximately.
Mr. McCann: How far have you gotten on your site plan?
Mr. Jackson: We have worked up a preliminary landscaping and site layout plan.
Mr. McCann: Is it here this evening?
Mr. Jackson displayed the plans he had with him.
Mr. LaPine: John, on the existing building where they have their claims office
now, he doesn't need a waiver use in the C-1, is that correct?
'4411. Mr. Nagy: That is right.
Mr. LaPine: That is another problem I have with a waiver use there. It means
it goes with the land.
Mr. Engebretson: As you know, we can't get involved in conditioning zoning and we
can't really tie the two events together, the zoning with the site
plan, but out of concern for some of the residents' points, your
site plan is really germane to the issue and even though it can't
be conditioned, it certainly can be used as a guide to what you
have in mind and I think Mr. McCann has the right to make a motion.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-2-1-3 closed.
Mr. McCann: I would make a tabling motion to the next regular study meeting and
ask that the proposed site plans be made available at that study so
we can review them to have a better idea of the impact on the
community.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
11541
#3-43-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Petition 91-2-1-3 by Castillo Company, Inc. for 6 property
owners requesting to rezone property located on the west side of
Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and Bentley Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 from RUF to OS, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 91-2-1-3 until the study meeting
`rr► of April 9, 1991.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-2-1-4
by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on
the south side of Five Mile Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 from C-2 to OS.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they
have no objections to this petition. Also in our file is a letter
tires, from the Engineering Department stating their department has no
objections to the rezoning proposal.
We have received a letter from Susan J. Carlson, an attorney
representing Loki Investments, the owners of the property, setting
forth the objections of Loki Investments as follows:
LOKI INVESTMENTS, a Michigan co-partnership, whose address is 32437
Five Mile Rd. , Livonia, Mi 48154, by and through Susan J. Carlson,
co-partner, hereby objects to the rezoning of its real property
from C-2 (general business) to OS (office services), as proposed in
Petition 91-2-1-4 brought by the City Planning Commission, and
says:
1. Loki Investments is the equitable owner pursuant to a land contract
of parcels GGlal and GG2al, as designated on the Zoning Map and
Master Plan for the City of Livonia and commonly known as 32437
Five Mile Rd. , located on the south side of Five Mile Rd. at
Fairfield.
2. Said parcels are presently zoned C-2 and P.
11542
3. The zoning designation of C-2 was originally applied to the parcels
in 1952 and no owner of the property has requested a change of
zoning classification.
4. The reason for the petition, as stated in the minutes for the
Planning Commission Study Meeting of January 29, 1991, is to
prevent the possible use of the property for commercial purposes,
for which it is presently zoned.
5. If said Petition is granted, the market value of Loki Investment's
property would be diminished.
6. The parcels owned by Loki Investments are presently on the market
for sale, and the granting of this petition changing the zoning
classification to a more restrictive one could constitute an
interference with Loki Investment's property and contract rights.
7. The proposed change in the zoning ordinance is arbitrary,
capricious and unreasonable.
8. The proposed change in the zoning ordinance constitutes a
confiscation of property rights by the City of Livonia without just
compensation.
9. The proposed change in the zoning ordinance to a more restrictive
classification bears no reasonable relation to the public safety,
health, morals or general welfare and is outside the authority
granted to the City of Livonia in the applicable zoning enabling
statutes as adopted by the State of Michigan.
10. The proposed change in the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with
the Master Zoning Plan as adopted by the City of Livonia.
err
11. The proposed change in the zoning ordinance constitutes
impermissible "spot zoning."
Therefore, the undersigned, requests that the Planning Commission deny
its Petition 91-2-1-4.
Mr. Engebretson: Since this is a City Planning Commission petition, could you
share with us the background as to the history of this property and
address some of the issues in that letter such as the point that it
represents spot zoning and is in conflict with the master plan and
some of those kinds of issues.
Mr. Nagy: The Master Plan of the City of Livonia, when it was adopted in its
form in 1975, designates the subject area as an office use area.
We grant the fact that the current established zoning is a C-2,
which zoning is inconsistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan.
The property, in its present use and in its past use, was for
office purposes. The Triple A and its portion of the property,
that is the approximate one-half of a line between Hubbard Avenue
and Fairfield Avenue, was in fact an office use and while the
building is vacant now, its most recent use was in fact for office
purposes. The west one-half of the property, from the center line
11543
of the two roads over to this Fairfield Avenue, is in fact an
office use and is continued in that use today. Therefore, the
purpose behind this zoning proposal is to try to have the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, specifically the zoning map of
the City of Livonia, amended to have the zoning classification
consistent with the Future Land Use Plan as well as consistent with
a,,` the established use of the property.
Mr. Engebretson: Have either of those buildings ever been used for purposes other
than office to your knowledge?
Mr. Nagy: To my knowledge they have not been.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess we would like to give the representative of the
landowners the first opportunity to have the floor and make
whatever remarks they would wish to make.
Susan Carlson: You have read our objections to this petition. I don't care to
restate them again on the record. However, I would like to say
regardless of the present use, you are proposing a more restrictive
zoning and it does make our land less valuable. We have had some
potential purchasers who were attracted by the present zoning so
this change in zoning could interfere with our contract rights if
we lose a buyer because of this. It has been zoned commercial for
such a long time. I think this action would be what this
Commission and what the Council so very often abhors and that is
what is sometimes called spot zoning and that is just taking one
small parcel and saying we are going to rezone it for some
individual purpose. I read the minutes of the Planning Commission
study meeting of this group and this was basically brought about
because of the fear because the Triple A building has been vacant
for almost a year now and apparently the City fears that it might
"r•. be put to a permissible use with the present zoning so, of course,
it must be rezoned and since our property is next door, you decided
to include it your petition. We are objecting to that even though
it is presently being used as an office and has been up until now.
Current market conditions may dictate that our buyer may want to
use it for commercial purposes. We think that is a valid use and
that changing the zoning now simply because of that fear that may
happen, is impermissible spot zoning, arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable and all the other good things I put in my objections.
Mr. Engebretson: That letter, by the way, is a part of the public record so there
was no reason to repeat it all.
Mr. Tent: Are you representing the client?
Ms. Carlson: I am a partner.
Mr. Tent: Can you tell me is there anyone now who is willing to purchase the
property?
Ms. Carlson: We don't have an offer.
Mr. Tent: In other words it is just status quo as it has been for the last
year?
11544
Ms. Carlson: No, I don't represent Triple A. Triple A is to the east of us.
Mr. Tent: You indicated here in your remarks that you were fearful that
something would come in that was objectionable etc. Your being an
attorney and you know about master plans and that they are subject
to being changed as your City progresses and develops and in 1972
the Master Plan was reviewed the way the City was developing and
determined that this property should be maintained for future land
use as a general office building. We are not doing anything
because we are fearful. We are trying to adjust to make the area
compatible to what is good for that location.
Ms. Carlson: You waited 20 years to do that.
Mr. Tent: How many years have you taken to rent the place or sell it? It has
been there for a long time. If it is such a valuable piece of
property, it should go.
Ms. Carlson: We would hope it would. There is no proposed commercial use and I
guess the question is how can you say any commercial use would be
inappropriate for the area. I am reading the minutes of the study
meeting and it says it is Mayor Bennett's opinion that it is very
possible that a commercial use could occupy Triple A's facility.
Mr. Tent: I am looking at it as a planner as what is the best use of the
property.
Ms. Carlson: I would propose that the owners of the property would have the best
answer to that.
Daniel Converse, Lawyer for the Automobile Club, 1 Auto Club Drive, Dearborn: I
have a protest petition also which I mailed to you last week.
`�. Evidently you did not receive it. (Mr. Converse handed in his
protest petition) The Auto Club has owned this property, one of
six properties they operate from Dearborn, for approximately 30
years. During that time it hasn't been a use that is permitted in
the OS district without a waiver. It has been a customer retail
office for the type of business the Auto Club conducts. We have an
insurance company. We have insurance salesmen in the office. We
have a travel agency. We have travel agents in the office. It is
not selling soda pop and tobacco but it is not a use that would be
permitted in an OS district without a waiver. We try to be good
citizens and with this lot and others we have plenty of parking
there. We have a philosphy that over these 30 years that we give
back to the community not just take into the community. You don't
see very much of us. We have been before this Commission trying to
get waivers to use our property in a manner that is not strictly
provided for in your ordinances. In this case we are getting a
little reverse treatment. One of my objections that I think is a
technical, legal constitutional objection is I don't think that
this is pursuant to comprehensive planning. I think zoning to be
valid has to be pursuant to a comprehensive plan. I think if your
plan were comprehensive for an OS district, you would look around
the community and see how many OS districts you had and OS
11545
districts are really for lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc.
Anything else is a waiver. Is this little office going to
substantially improve your need there. If it doesn't, you should
do something comprehensive. Find some other areas you should also
zone this way. Determine if this is a part of the community where
OS zoning to provide for lawyers, doctors and architects should be.
*s. Have you got the ideal place? That is the type of thing you should
do. It would be more than just a a knee jerk reaction to the
potentials of the Auto Club who after all these years might sell
the property. We operated at this property for 30 years and last
year we had a corporate rearrangement and we will probably have
this office in Livonia in some western part of the City. I don't.
think this is too small to reflect a real comprehensive plan. I
don't think it is a comprehensive plan. I think it is just a fear
that some potential purchaser of the property is not something you
want right there. This could cause the Auto Club considerable
damage because if we sought to reopen and do the same thing we have
done for 30 years, after you rezone to OS, we couldn't do it
without a waiver. This is not a professional office use.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to bring him up to speed. I believe our ordinance
does no longer require waivers for professional use. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nagy: The PS district has been amended and retitled office services and
therefore generally most all of the administrative office uses are
now permitted by right within the OS classification. The ordinance
still does provide for waiver uses and among the many waiver uses,
one is a real estate office and the second one is an insurance
office.
Mr. Converse: As an insurance company we could not come in there.
`fir
Mr. Nagy: We believe you could. You would be grandfathered in.
Mr. Converse: Another business like ours could not come in without getting a
waiver. This property is not designed for the typical office use.
It is a big shell of a building. It is good for salesmen, good for
people who sell insurance and people who conduct travel businesses,
not anything a lawyer would be in. If you were developing this as
a commercial office you would probably knock down that building and
build something with two stories. You would probably have too much
parking. To sum up, if this is part of a comprehensive plan, there
is an ice cream store right across the street. There is a real
estate office across the street also. I think that would come in
as a waiver under your zoning laws. There are other close by C-2
districts on Five Mile Road and if C-2 on Five Mile is not
appropriate, as part of a comprehensive plan you would be
considering those along with this one also.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-2-1-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
r..
11546
##3-44-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Petition 91-2-1-4 by the City Planning Commission proposing
to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Hubbard Road and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22
from C-2 to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 91-2-1-4 until the study meeting of April 23, 1991.
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: Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Tent, McCann, LaPine, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-2-1-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
f#1103-90, proposing to rezone property located at the northwest corner
of Newburgh and Joy Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to
R-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
that development of the site will require on-site storm water
detention in accordance with a recent City of Livonia-Westland
err agreement. We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison
stating they have no objections to this petition, however, they do
maintain overhead lines on this property that would conflict with
any construction.
We have also received a four page letter from Sebastiano Casadei of
2845 Hunters Bluff, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, owner of all three
parcels directly affected by the outcome of this rezoning, as
follows:
In reference to the afore-mentioned petition, as the owner of all
three parcels directly affected by its outcome, I muat respectfully
register my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the northwest
corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads from C-1 to R-1. I would
additionally ask that the Planning Commission, after a review of
this letter, reconsider its petition and recommend the rejection of
the proposed rezoning to the City Council of Livonia.
I would like to start by explaining my involvement with the City of
Livonia. I initially purchased property within the City limits of
Livonia in April of 1961. I subsequently built a free-standing
commercial building on the property, which I still own and is
currently occupied by PIP Printing at 27600 Seven Mile Road. In
11547
July of 1972, I purchased a 4 acre commercial parcel surrounding
but not including the northwest corner of Newburgh and Joy roads
for retail development. I proceeded to obtain Planning Commission
approval for a commercial speculative building in November of 1972.
Unfortunately, there was very little interest from prospective
tenants for a commercial speculative building in the area. I
Now consequently did not build on the parcel, since an empty
speculative building would not benefit myself nor the City of
Livonia. In March of 1973, I purchased two commercial parcels on
Five Mile Road, which I still own but have been subsequently
rezoned to office. During the next 14 years, interest in my vacant
properties in Livonia was virtually nonexistant. In the late
1980's, interest in the Newburgh and Joy Road area picked up but my
parcel could not attract any quality tenants. I was told that
without substantial Newburgh Road frontage, quality tenants were
not interested. In December of 1987, I purchased the one acre
commercial northwest corner parcel at Newburgh and Joy Roads that
my four acre parcel surrounded. In February of 1989, I purchased a
1.48 acre commercial parcel with Newburgh Road frontage, north of
Joy Road, that abutted my two other parcels at the northwest corner
of Newburgh and Joy Roads. I thought that I had paid above fair
market commercial rates for the last two parcels, but the parcels
were needed to construct a quality commercial building that would
attract quality tenants. At this time, I started working with the
adjoining property owners to construct a storm sewer to service our
parcels. Also at this time, the City of Livonia raised the
assessment on my property by 109 3/4% in one year. I appealed the
increased assessment, the only time in 30 years as a Livonia
property taxpayer that I have appealed an assessment. The Livonia
Board of Assessment review reviewed by petition based on its merits
and in an attempt to make the valuation just, let the increased
assessment stand. The following year my assessment was raised an
``. additional 9%. I did not appeal the 1990 assessment because after
18 years of paying commercial assessments on the property without
any legitimate interest from any quality commercial tenants, the
parcels were finally in demand as a commercial property. After
years of conversations with real estate brokers, Mike Lippitt of
Landmark Realty finally secured a firm commitment from a quality
commercial tenant, Arbor Drugs, as well as tentative commitments
from quality tenants totaling 21,000 square feet. Since September
of 1990, my engineers, Giffels-Webster of Rochester Hills, have
been working with Gary Clark at the City of Livonia to prepare a
site plan for a commercial building at the northwest corner of
Newburgh and Joy Roads. My architect, Matthew Ray of Troy, has
been preparing the building elevation and layout for a commercial
building scheduled to start construction by mid 1991. Finally
after 19 years, I could realistically envision a quality center on
the site. Yet, less than five months after receiving commitments
from tenants, after contacting the City of Livonia Engineering
Department, and after incurring substantial expense to construct a
quality commercial building, the City of Livonia would like to
rezone my property from the commercial zoning that it has had for
19 years to residential. I suggest that would be an unjust and
inequitable change in the current zoning.
Nal,
11548
Before making your recommendation to the City Council on Petition
91-2-1-5, I would ask that you would consider the following seven
factors:
1-The background on the three affected parcels and my 30 year
involvement with the City of Livonia
2-The need for a quality commercial building because of the lack of
available retail space within the trade area that it would serve
(within a 2 mile radius)
3-The lack of any significant retail vacancy in the area
4-The present commitments from quality tenants
5-The substantial expenses incurred to date to construct a
commercial building on the site in reliance on the City of
Livonia's zoning of the property when I purchased the parcels,
the reaffirmation of its commercial value as recently as two
years ago by the City of Livonia Board of Assessment Review, and
on its current commercial zoning.
6-The increased traffic resulting from the expansion of Newburgh
Road would be better suited to a commercial property and would
actually be detrimental to any proposed residential development
located at the corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads.
7-The opposition to Petition 91-2-1-5 by the adjoining property
owners in the City of Livonia.
I ask that after a careful review of my petition, based on its
merit, that you come to a conclusion that is just and equitable for
all those concerned.
Lastly, we have received a letter from Michael R. Lippitt, Retail
Specialist for Landmark Commercial Real Estate Services stating he
feels there is a definite need for quality commercial/retail space
`. in the immediate trade area. He states his client, Arbor Drugs, is
interested in becoming the main anchor tenant of a proposed project
at this location. He requests that the Commission consider the
utility of a commercial center at the northwest corner of Joy Road
and Newburgh as it will benefit neighboring residents.
Mr. Engebretson: Will either Mr. Shane or Mr. Nagy share some background with us
as to the mind set that the Council was dealing with when this
matter was referred back to the Planning Commission late last year.
Mr. Shane: With reference to the map that is on the screen, you will note
there are outlined in dotted lines a proposed subdivision, which
runs north of Joy Road and also utilizes Stonehouse Avenue. Prior
to the plotting of that subdivision, that land was rezoned from a
multi-family residential classification to a single family
residential classification. It was during the time that discussion
was held on that particular petition that subject property came up
under discussion and it was discovered it was not only vacant but
it was zoned C-1 and you will also notice there is a proposed
street which dead ends at the northerly edge of the property
outlined in red, which would seem to suggest that possibly in the
future that road would be carried forth over to Newburgh Avenue and
that the lots would be extended easterly along that road, which
11549
would take up part of subject property that is zoned C-1 and it
followed from that then if that would be the case, perhaps the
subject property may not be zoned in its proper category to make
that happen in the future. Based on that thinking the Council did
pass a resolution requesting the Planning Commission hold a public
hearing to consider rezoning the C-1 to an appropriate residential
use.
Mr. Engebretson: What does the Master Plan designate that area?
Mr. Shane: The Master Plat designates it as commercial.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the landowner or his representative here tonight?
John Cassidy, son of the landowner: I think the basis of our opposition was said
by Mr. Shane over there in a long winded letter and I apologize for
the length. I don't think anything in addition to the letter is
necessary on my part in terms of how we feel on the zoning of the
property.
Mr. Engebretson: You made yourself pretty clear.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You do have plans for a strip center there?
Mr. Cassidy: That is correct. We tentatively have plans for a 46,000 square
foot center.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You have 21,000 square feet committed out of that?
Mr. Cassidy: So far.
iur Mr. Vyhnalek: You do have applicants knocking at your door?
Mr. Cassidy: Apparently so. My father has had the property for 19 years with
very little interest and within the past 18 months to 2 years the
interest is very strong.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Did any of the home builders or developers try to buy that northern
part of your property?
Mr. Cassidy: I have had numerous conversations with Lou Ronayne who is currently
planning a single family residential development.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Did he try to buy that so he could have a road out to Newburgh.
Mr. Cassidy: He is a realtor for ReMax and he has always stated to me that the
most logical use for my property would be commercial.
Mr. LaPine: Iii the parcel that Mr. Vyhnalek was just talking about, would it be
feasible if that was squared off and that one parcel were part of
the R-1 and then your center would be one square there?
Mr. Cassidy: Basically, as I stated in my letter, the main reason we weren't
attracting tenants was because Newburgh is the better road there
11550
for commercial and that is the main reason we started picking up
additional parcels. We have 80 foot frontage on Newburgh with the
original four acre parcel. The main reason to buy those two
parcels was to give some major frontage on Newburgh Road.
Mr. LaPine: How much frontage is that portion on Newburgh Road?
Mr. Nagy: The entire frontage on Newburgh Road from the north right-of-way
line of Joy Road to the north boundary line of the C-2 district is,
as near as I can tell, about 480 feet.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-2-1-5 closed.
Mr. LaPine: I would like to make a tabling motion for an opportunity to look at
this in more depth. I can understand the petitioner's reluctance
to not have it rezoned R-1 but I think there might be some room
here where we might be able to negotiate and get a little of what
we want and a little of what he wants. Therefore, I would like to
table until our next study meeting of April 9, 1991.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#3-45-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Petition 91-2-1-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #1103-90, proposing to rezone property located at
the northwest corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 31 from C-1 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 91-2-1-5 until the study meeting of April 9,
1991.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: Kluver, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-2-1-6
by Rotondo Bros. for Vera Carroll requesting to rezone property located
on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Wayne Roads in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 8 from R-4B to R-3.
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
should the rezoning be approved resulting in the tentative
preliminary plat attached to the subject petition, we would
11551
recommend the following: 1. Access to Seven Mile Road from Lot No.
3 should be prohibited. 2. Provisions for one-site driveway
turn-arounds on Lots No. 1 and No. 2 should be required. We have
also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objections to this petition, however, they do maintain overhead
,,r, lines on this property that would conflict with any construction.
Mr. Gniewek: The proposed zoning is R-3. Looking at the size of lots that are
proposed there, how would that compare to lots as far as R-4 lots
that presently exist there?
Mr. Nagy: In terms of the lot area, the individual total lot area of the 8
lots would very closely parallel R-4, in fact the majority would
exceed the R-4 requirements in terms of lot area and lot depth
requirements. Where they would have a conflict with the present
zoning would be with respect to lot width. R-4 has a minimum lot
width of 90 feet. Some of these lots are only 80 feet in width.
That is really the basis behind the zoning change to allow them to
have a narrow 80 foot lot as opposed to the 90 foot lot.
Mr. Gniewek: But as you indicated the area of the lots are comparable to the R-4
and in some cases actually exceed the R-4 district.
Mr. Nagy: In the majority of the cases they exceed the R-4.
Mr. Gniewek: What about the R-3 designation as far as the size of homes that
would go in that particular area?
Mr. Nagy: The present zoning of R-4B, the suffix "B" relates to the minimum
dwelling size, and we would recommend that the suffix "B" be part
of this petition, if it were successful, so the dwelling size would
`iry be consistent with respect to the established zoning in the area.
Mr. Gniewek: A "B" suffix would be better than R-3. The houses would have to be
larger than 1000 square feet or 1200 square feet?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly right.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward.
Sean Kavanagh, Attorney representing Rotondo Bros. , 17940 Farmington Road, Suite
280, Livonia: I have filed a petition on behalf of Rotondo Bros. as you have
indicated. We have provided an overhead. The 60 foot property
along Seven Mile is an easement that has been taken by Wayne County
and the City of Livonia for widening the road in the future. That
cannot be built on. Three of the Rotondo brothers are here today
and they are open to any questions the Commissioners may have.
They have indicated that on Lot 1 and 2 they did anticipate a turn-
around driveway. As we all know, backing onto Seven Mile Road is
tantamount to suicide. Therefore, they would be agreeable to
having turnaround driveways. Lot 3 is a 110 foot wide lot. The
reason is they have allocated approximately 20 feet on the northern
edge for a berm. The berm would go the entire width of the lot and
would add to the aesthetic value of the subdivision. The access
11552
point for Lots 3 through 8 would be from Wayne Road. There would
be no access to Seven Mile Road off Lot 3. The back end of this
property is not heavily wooded but it is second growth deciduous
trees and a few pine trees. With the plot plan as we spelled it
out here, although we don't have any specific control over that
`, second growth deciduous tree area, it is heavily wooded and would
protect anybody who may have a lot in the back from any noises.
There would be plenty of natural greenbelt between the houses on
Van Road and those on Wayne Road. Lots 1 and 2 also have a
greenbelt in terms of the natural growth in the back end. The
alternative that we have, other than the R-3 zoning here, is
something we don't think would be an added value to the area. One
of the reasons is if we had to go to R-4, as it presently stands,
the developers would have to come in off Seven Mile with a paved
road and a cul-de-sac. What that would present is backyards facing
Wayne Road all the way down, very short lots and houses in the back
whose rear yards would face the houses on Van Road and would be
much closer. The only objection that the Rotondo Bros. have
received and they have spoken to all of the neighbors is from the
property owner across Wayne Road. For your information, the
property owner across the street intends to develop that property.
He intends to have R-4 development and the reason is he has to have
90 foot lots because he doesn't have the depth that these lots
emcompass. R-4 is 90 foot x 130 foot minimum and is approximately
11,700 square feet. You will notice that Lots 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 in
this plot plan are far in excess of the minimum requirements. Lots
3, 4 and 5 are in excess of minimum requirements of R-4 lots. We
think this is the best proposed zoning for this particular piece of
land at this time.
Mr. LaPine: Why can't we have six lots instead of eight lots and have them all
‘4411' entering off Wayne Road and then have a berm all the way across the
property? I know one of the reasons is you can get two more lots
by doing it this way. Wouldn't it make more sense to have six lots
entering off Wayne Road?
Mr. Kavanagh: Obviously if the developer purchased this land for a certain price
and to get the most lots out of it, as every developer attempts to
do, without destroying the neighborhood, he would do it. That is
what they are trying to do in this instance. If you have six lots
straight down Wayne Road, you are going to have very large lots and
you are going to have a situation where the developer is stuck
between a rock and a hard place and you would have to put
tremendous homes in there and with today's market and in last
year's market and in a year's market, it would be very, very
difficult to sell these lots if they are that size and very
difficult to find a buyer who could afford that kind of home on
those lots. I think this use here is the very best use without
infringing upon the developer's right to make a minimal profit on
these lots.
Mr. LaPine: I don't think you would have a problem selling the large lots.
Most of the new homes being built in Livonia are starting at
$185,000 on up. I don't think you would have any problem selling
them. I would just like to see all six lots coming off Wayne Road
and have a berm across the top. You might be able to increase the
`r' width of all the lots. That is my own personal opinion.
11553
Mr. Kavanagh: The problem with that is these lots are approximately 340 feet
deep, Lots 6, 7 and 8. Increase the width on those another 10, 20
or 30 feet and you have a very big lot. I can't tell you whether
they would sell quickly or for the right price. I know the
developers are here tonight and they have indicated to me that they
would be amenable to a square footage minimum, as Mr. Nagy has
indicated. We could add on the suffix "B". If the neighbors or
anyone is worried that the Rotondo Bros. are not going to put a
house on these lots that will be in excess of the neighboring
values of the neighborhood, they are mistaken because they have
built many homes in Livonia. They have built many homes on 80 foot
lots along Gill Road just north of Seven Mile. Those homes have
been priced comparable to the homes that are coming into the Van
Road area. If anybody is worried that they are going to put up a
very small square footage house on these lots because it is an 80
foot lot, that is not going to happen and they are here to answer
your questions.
Mr. LaPine: I don't think that is the question. As I recall, you told me you
couldn't build a house there and get your money out of it. I am
telling you, you can build a $225,000, $230,000, $240,000 home
on those size lots and sell them.
Mr. Kavanagh: You get a problem with diminishing returns. You can have a lot
that is 15 miles deep and 90 feet across and you are only going to
get the same price because the house can only be so big.
Mr. Tent: Everybody has been skirting around the prices of the houses. How
much are these houses going to sell for?
Mr. Kavanagh: In excess of $200,000.
i`
Mr. Tent: What would the model mix be? Ranches, colonials?
Joe Rotondo: We plan on building ranches and two-story homes in the area.
Mr. Tent: What is the mix? More two story than single story?
Mr. Rotondo: We don't know at this time. We don't plan on having the same house
repeated as far as the elevation. We plan on building them all
ourselves.
Mr. Tent: The marketplace being what it is now, if you were successful in
getting everything approved, how soon would you propose to develop
the property?
Mr. Rotondo: As soon as feasible. As soon as everything clears City Hall.
Mr. Tent: Your intention is not to get the rezoning and then sell the
property to some other developer. You would follow through with
it.
Mr. Rotondo: No, we would be developing the property and building on the lots.
11554
Mr. McCann: Mr. Kavanagh, you discussed the entrance off Seven Mile with a
cul-de-sac. How many homes would have been on that?
Mr. Kavanagh: I think it would be the same amount of lots. The problem is we
would have an amount of roadway space you would need, at least 60
feet. That would run us into a lot smaller lots. We would have
the homes that have the rear along Van Road much closer. Same
thing on the Wayne Road side. You would be looking at the back end
of these houses as opposed to the landscaped front end. I think it
would be very detrimental to this corner.
Mr. Kluver: I appreciate everything you say. Again, looking at that there is a
certain maximization of the property that is available. I really
feel that development is a maximization of that lot as far as
developing the eight lots out of that particular parcel. I have to
share with what Mr. LaPine said. I would like to see six equally
divided lots. I think it would be more logical and you would have
more continuity to the development. I appreciate what your
argument is but that presents to me the maximization of using that
land to develop it for the fullest but possibly not the best way to
do it.
Mr. Kavanagh: May I respond to that comment. The problem we have with the
present zoning of R-4, the Rotondo Bros. can come in here and put
in a cul-de-sac with 90 foot lots all the way around and they don't
need to get it rezoned to do that. The way they have this
anticipated site plan, it is going to be a beautiful subdivision.
I don't think the size of the lots has any direct bearing on the
quality of the homes that are going to be built. If you want them
to put on the record that they will abide by any square footage
requirements, they will do it.
\.
Mr. Kluver: I am not concerned about minimum requirements or square footage. I
am looking at it from the viewpoint as a single Commissioner. I
don't particularly like that type of development. I know you are
going to build a good house.
Mr. Kavanagh: I am sure you were on the Planning Commission at the time the
development that went into Gary Lane, the same thing was done there
that we are asking to do here. There is a home facing Seven Mile
Road and the rest of them are facing on Gary Lane. We are
basically asking for a reiteration and that is a beautiful
subdivision.
Mr. Kluver: No question about it but again I can appreciate the fact but this
is again one Commissioner's opinion, but there is a certain degree
of economic impact in this development whether six, eight, ten or
twelve lots. I just happen to feel that a six lot development in
that area is something I would find very appealing.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Which lots of the eight are 80 feet?
Mr. Kavanagh: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Why didn't you make seven lots and not come before us?
11555
Mr. Kavanagh: Lot 3 could be knocked down to 90 feet. You wouldn't have room for
a berm. Lots 4 and 5 would be back up to 90 feet. That would
leave just three lots with 80 foot widths. Then we are back to a
situation where you are driving down Seven Mile and you are looking
into somebody's side yard without a berm.
`gr.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The homes on Lot 1 and 2 will be back probably 100 feet from the
road. They are going to have the back yards of Lot 3 and 4 looking
into the side of their house and Lot 1 is going to have the
neighbors on the west looking into the side of their house. I
think if you had seven you could stay where you are at.
Mr. Gniewek: We are talking about rezoning at this point and not preliminary
plat. Do we want to allow 80 foot lots developed in that area with
the classification of R-3B or whether we want to leave it at 90
foot lots with R-4.
Mr. Engebretson: That is the question but I think some of what we discussed here
has a great bearing on whether or not it is appropriate to make
this change. Whereas they apparently fit the spirit of the R-4
zoning, they don't necessarily fit the letter of it.
Janet Janiga, 18986 Van: We currently have a home that is well under way. It is
under construction at this location. My backyard will back up to
Lot 8 that is shown here. I am concerned over the situation. My
biggest concern is the square footage of the homes that will be
going up on the property. I was concerned when I called the Zoning
Board this morning and they informed me that the R-4B code
references the lot size 90' x 130' and then the woman I spoke to
said it only required a 1300 square foot home and then I instantly
panicked because my home that we are currently putting up is
vr.. approximately 3300 square feet. No way do I want a small 1300
square foot home sitting behind my 3300 square foot home. I would
like to see on the record the amount of square footage of the homes
that are going to go on these lots. Also I am concerned about the
type of homes that are going up. Are these going to be brick
homes? Are they going to be all wood?
Mr. Vyhnalek: If they are going to invest this kind of money, they are not going
to build 1300 square foot homes. I can assure you of that as a
Commissioner. It is going to be quite expensive. I was the one
who was thinking they should do the same with this lot as on Van
Road. What is the value of your home with 3300 square feet?
Ms. Janiga: The homes that are going up in the area and have sold recently on
Van Road are around the $240,000 up to $280,000. So we are
concerned about what is backing up to us.
Mr. Mc Cann: Janet, one of the things when I looked at this. I have looked for
property on Van Road myself and I know those lots range from
$50,000 to $60,000. That was two years ago. I kind of like this
plan presented. I will tell you why. When you have a lot there
90' by 140' , the majority of the lots are going to be one and a
half the size of your lot. They are going to be spending probably
more for their lot than you did for your lot. If you are going to
11556
be putting that much money into just the lot, you are going to be
spending a fortune on your home. They are going to be in the same
situation you were in. The one thing that scares me from a
planning standpoint is they don't need to come before us and get a
change of zoning, they can go ahead and get as many lots as they
have right now but what they don't want is to have their back yards
facing onto Wayne Road. They are going with the absolute minimum,
which is 130 feet to just squeeze it in. So you are going to have
90' x 130' instead of 80' x 200' .
Ms. Janiga: I am not opposed to their plot layout per se. I would much rather
have a wooded buffer.
Mr. McCann: They have a 300 foot depth between you and the back. To me that is
better than squaring it up and putting a road in there. I don't
think you have to worry about a 1300 square foot home.
Ms. Janiga: I would like to see some minimum square footage put on record.
Mr. Gniewek: I just wanted to point out that the particular zoning in your area,
the R-4B, the minimum house size for that for that particular
zoning district is 1300 square feet and 1560 square feet for a two
story house. So somebody in your R-4 area could put in a house of
1300 square feet.
Mr. Nagy: The municipal zoning laws of the City of Livonia establish a
minimum dwelling size pursuant to the City ordinance. In your
subdivision, when you buy land, you enter into a private contract.
You have what is called restrictive covenants and agreements. In
that document of restrictive covenants and agreements, those
fir. property owners that buy lots within that area voluntarily restrict
themselves to put in certain minimum dwelling sizes. I think if
you would look at your restrictive covenants and agreements you
would see that a ranch can't be less than 2,000 square feet and I
think a two story can't be less than 2,500 square feet. Those are
your own restricive covenants and agreements that you have entered
into. The municipal zoning laws, however, if you didn't have a
subdivision there and there were no restrictive covenants and
agreements, then the municipal ordinance would apply and that would
allow dwellings of a ranch down to 1300 square feet. In this case
here, this property on the corner would not have to be platted and
if the property owner wanted to go in there and just parcel it off,
just go through lot splits and not a plat, he could build a ranch
right now as low as 1300 square feet but if he chooses to subdivide
the property under the present zoning or any future zoning, then
the plat would have to come in with restrictive covenants and
agreements and then we would try to establish minimum dwelling
sizes consistent with the established lot sizes and house sizes in
the area and have him provide to the Planning Commission, with his
plat, the set of restrictive covenants and agreements to assure
those home sizes would be compatible to the homes in the area.
While tonight we are premature in looking at the dwelling sizes
because we can't enter into contract zoning and assure you tonight
that there are going to be any minimum dwelling sizes, what we can
`a.
11557
assure is if he chooses to subdivide his property under present
zoning or any future zoning, we will then get into things like the
dwelling sizes and look at those restrictive covenants and
agreements and give you and your neighbors the assurance that they
need but we can't do that tonight.
"Nor
Mr. McCann: One of the things that we do on the Planning Commission, we have a
lot of local developers like the Rotondo Bros. here. These are
Livonia residents who are building here in Livonia. We can't
condition the zoning as John said but when they come in and they
tell us we are going to put certain minimums on the lot, we only
take them at their word at this point but most of the builders and
people that come before us are professionals and we realize that
they stick to their word and most of the time they do and we have
to look at that and have trust in that.
Joe Durso: I am the guy on the other side. Contrary to belief I don't think
this is a bad project. I think it is a very nice project. I do
feel that if they could modify it a little, they could make it work
out a little better. I think the way they laid it out, they laid
it out as well as could be done. It is a very popular corner.
I just built the house across the street and it is about 3800
square feet. If at all possible, without injuring their financial
situation too much, I would like to see the last four lots changed
from 80 feet to 90 feet. We do want to see that developed. If
they could work it out it would really go along with everything
else in the area. I am planning on doing a 90 foot subdivision
across the street. Again, you have to look at what they are trying
to accomplish to do the best they can with the property. If they
can do it and make the lots to the south 90 feet without injuring
their situation too much, that is the way I would like to see it.
They do build a fine home. They are very reputable builders and
they do a nice development. I am not totally opposed. I would
like to see them work it out to go with the 90 foot lots.
Steve Hollar: I am Lot 18 on Van Road. With the layout of the lots that were
shown previously, Lot #1 would run along the back side of my
property. The problem I have with that is if you go down to R-3,
you are allowed 8 foot minimum setback, which would bring him 8
feet from my property line. With a cul-de-sac you would have a
minimum of 30 feet on the rear. Tht would be my biggest objection.
The other plan suggested earlier about coming in off Wayne Road for
all properties would be most advantageous to my thoughts. I think
the other layout might be a better layout from the standpoint of at
least Lots 17, 18 and 19, which would be on Van Road.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, can you speak to his concerns relative to the side yard
versus the back yard encroachment onto his property.
Mr. Nagy: In an R-4B the minimum side yard requirement is 10 feet. In an R-3
it is 8 feet. So there is a difference of two feet with respect to
the side yard. The rear yard for R-3 is 30 feet and the rear yard
for R-4 is 35 feet. So there is a difference of five feet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How far is the back of your house to the end of your lot going
east?
11558
Mr. Hollar: Sixty-three feet to my back property.
Tony Coruzio, 33735 Five Mile Road: Even though I don't live in the immediate area,
I am a Livonia resident and I was involved in the initial
transaction. I just want to shed a little history on this. When
Mr. Rotondo and I initially walked this property, his first comment
was how many trees can we save? That was his main interest. If
they do come in with the road off Seven Mile, I think you are going
to have to get rid of a lot of those trees. With all due respect
to Mr. LaPine's opinion on the six lots, I think it would be
putting a financial burden on them because at an average of $60,000
per lot, there will be two less lots. That would be $120,000 that
would have to be split over six lots. They have to take $20,000
and tack it on to each house. The lots generally are a lot nicer
than any development close to the area. Unfortunately we have had
developers who have come to Livonia and the first thing they do is
bulldoze everything out. That is not what they are trying to do.
They are trying to keep the greenbelt. That is all they are trying
to do. By taking it down to six lots, I do believe we will be
putting a financial burden on them.
Mr. Kavanagh: The Rotondo Bros. have just indicated to me that if the request
were denied, they could go ahead and put their paving in with a
cul-de-sac and they could squeeze in with 90 foot lots about ten
lots with the present zoning as opposed to eight as proposed here.
They are going to be very close to this gentleman's lot and there
are going to be no trees left. This is a nice sub and it is
intended that way right from the start. The amount of money they
would have to spend on paving would have to be taken right out of
their pocket and in turn added on to the cost of any lots, which in
turn would have to come out of the pockets of the folks who are
`fir going to build homes there. I would ask the board to approve this
as we requested.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Kavanagh, I agree with your comments. I do feel this would be
much more appropriate for the neighborhood and more in keeping with
what we have now on Wayne Road. As one Commissioner I am in
support of your plan as I see it.
Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me Mr. Kavanagh if your petitioner does not get his
way, he is going to go ahead and build the cul-de-sac and put the
ten houses in?
Mr. Kavanagh: No. I am saying that is a possibility.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on 91-2-1-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#3-46-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Petition 91-2-1-6 by Rotondo Bros. for Vera Carroll
requesting to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven
Mile and Wayne Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8 from R-4B to R-3,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 91-2-1-6 be approved with the addition of the suffix B to
°``"� the proposed R-3 zoning district for the following reasons:
11559
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning and uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is in compliance with the Future
Land Use Plan designation of Low Density Residential for the
:-er subject property.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a more
efficient land use proposal while still maintaining the overall
established character of the area.
4) That the proposed change of zoning will promote single family
residential development on a major mile road frontage and at the
intersection of the mile road and a collector street.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
##543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-2-2-5
by Tom Ruskiewicz for the Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval
to hold their annual Spring Carnival at Ladbroke DRC located at the
Nair southeast corner of Schoolcraft Service Drive and Middlebelt Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 25.
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 the waiver use petition. We have also
received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating
no deficiencies or problems were found. Also in our file is a
letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal is acceptable
as long as: (1) All parking is confined to the D.R.C. property.
(2) Entrance/exit is confined to the normal operating gates, i.e.
Middlebelt at Industrial and Schoolcraft - approximately 1,300 feet
and 2,000 feet east of Middlebelt. Also in our file is a letter
from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this
petition. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Fire Marshal
stating they have no objections to this proposal.
Tom Ruskiewicz, Livonia Jaycees: I am also the chair person for the Spring
Festival Committee. I respectfully request waiver use approval to
hold our 26th Annual Spring Festival at Ladbroke DRC.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Who is the operator of the carnival this year?
11560
Mr. Ruskiewicz: Wade Shows.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You had the same property. Any problems?
Mr. Ruskiewicz: No sir.
Mr. Vyhnalek: There will be no alcohol served there?
Mr. Ruskiewicz: We are planning on having a beer tent but there are no definite
plans made yet. We are working out an agreement with special
services and DRC.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think now the law is you have to be fenced in. Is that correct?
Mr. Ruskiewicz: Right. We will not let the alcohol leave the area. We have 25
members attending a beer server class, which is put on by Budweiser.
Mr. Vyhnalek: When are you going to be positive that you will be having a beer
tent? This is something new.
Jerry Bagazinski, President of Livonia Jaycees: We are currently trying to work out
the logistics. We wouldn't be using Sports Services' license. We
would be pulling our own license.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are involved there for 11 days. What would the beer license
run?
Mr. Bagazinski: It would run for eight days. A three-day period and a five-day
period.
Mr. Tent: This will be the first year for a liquor license?
Mr. Bagazinski: Yes sir.
Mr. Tent: Was there any reason for having it. Was that for profit? Normally
a carnival is a fun place and you can contain the people and the
crowds. You indicate you have never had any problems. How long
have you been doing this?
Mr. Ruskiewicz: This is the 26th year.
Mr. Tent: You have never served beer and it was a success.
Mr. Ruskiewicz: Yes it was. We want to expand a little. We also plan on involving
other community organizations this year.
Mr. Tent: You feel you will be able to control the drinking on the premises?
Mr. Ruskiewic: We are sending 25 members of the Jaycees to the server class. We
are planning on having extra reserves on the nights the beer is
served.
Mr. Engebretson: Why, after 25 years, was it necessary to introduce alcohol into
this community event which has a very high population of young
people?
11561
Mr. Bagazinski: The goal of that is to kind of expand our base of individuals that
participate so we can reach the maximum income potential through
the event but also to target market more adults to the event. The
beer tent is going to be off limits to anyone under the age of 21.
It is going to be a very controlled environment. Our people are
et, going to be well trained as well as having additional police
reserves.
Mr. Engebretson: Could the event be reasonably expected to be a success without
serving beer?
Mr. Bagazinski: We discovered in talking with other Jaycee Chapters across the
country at a recent conference we attended that we were missing the
boat on this particular event and more importantly in our own
marketing analysis that we did after our event last year, that this
was a logical addition to our event. From a marketing standpoint
too to be able to bring in a top quality carnival company. There
is a lot of competition out there for the different carnival
companies and we felt it was important to enhance the event.
Mr. Ruskiewic: I would like to add something to that. That is all we were having
is a carnival, which brings in kids usually younger than 18 or
below. The Jaycees is a young people organization from 18 to 40 so
we are trying to bring in that crowd in order to increase our
membership and I think a beer tent is a good way to bring in new
members. We do plan on having a recruitment booth.
Mr. Engebretson: You refer to marketing data that you have from other chapters.
Do you have copies of that you could submit to us?
Mr. Bagazinski: Yes. We got the information from Los Vegas Jaycees, Honolulu
yr► Jacees, Chatanooga, Tennessee. We have also talked to the Lansing
and Ann Arbor Jaycees.
Mr. Engebretson: I had no problem with this petition until I heard you introduce
this new subject and I guess I would like to ask you if you would
consider deferring the beer issue until next year when the City
could have an opportunity to conduct an analysis of the same kind
of process that you were able to go through. I am very reluctant
to support this without having any backup information.
Mr. Bagazinski: We could provide it to you.
Mr. McCann: I understand where they are coming from and I certainly understand
the situation with alcohol, the reluctance to allow it, but on the
other hand the City of Livonia has had the Spree, where we have had
numerous beer tents from day one. I don't know if that has
provided any greater problem than without it. I don't know if the
City can say it is fine for us but not for you. I can see where
they are coming from and I don't know that it has been shown that
it is a substantial problem. I don't know if you have contacted
the Spree people to see how they do it.
Mr. Bagazinski: We have worked with the Spree. It is worthwhile to point out that
Sport Services has a right to actually go out there and set up a
tent without our permission.
r..
11562
Mr. Engebretson: Jim, I understand your point but the Spree has been going on for
years. They know what they are dealing with and I would hope that
the Jaycees would do as well and I am sure they can if given the
proper amount of time to prepare for it. Should they go into it
without proper preparation I think gives rise to some valid
planning concerns.
'`►
Mr. Bagazinski: We also have a 26 year history with this event. We have also, on
an annual basis, pulled liquor license for different events where
alcohol has been served. It is not anything new.
Mr. LaPine: Twice during your presentation when you were talking about the beer
tent, you alluded to the fact you were going to have additional
police officers there that night. That leads me to believe the
beer tent is open only one night or is it open every night of the
operation?
Mr. Bagazinski: Just on weekends, Friday, Saturday and Sunday and Memorial Day
weekend.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I didn't mean to give the impression I was against the beer. I
wasn't. Spree is grandfathered in. If you comply with the state
and are fenced in, other carnivals in the state, as long as they
have security, they have no problems. If you comply with the state
and fence in the tent area, I doubt that there will be any
problems.
Mr. Bagazinski: In addition, the reserves have been informed on what to do.
Mrs. Fandrei: You sound like you are trying to compete with the Spree. I would
have to say I am not excited about having the beer on the premises.
,44111. My thought is the carnival is a family affair and it has been
proven daily that alcohol, in any form, is becoming more and more
of a problem with our young people. I really have a problem with
your trying to attract the 21 year old group with beer. I have to
say I am not in favor of that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-2-2-5 closed.
Mr. Morrow: I am going to vote in favor of this petition because the Jaycees
have a good track record througout the years and certainly have the
right to continue their carnival. Perhaps with this enhancement of
the beer they are putting their reputation on the line if they do
have any problems.
Mr. Engebretson: I will support the petition for the same reasons but I suggest
they pay very careful attention to the control of the event on
those nights.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#3-47-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Petition 91-2-2-5 by Tom Ruskiewicz for the Livonia Jaycees
requesting waiver use approval to hold their annual Spring Carnival at
Ladbroke DRC located at the southeast corner of Schoolcraft Service
11563
Drive and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 91-2-2-5 be approved subject to the following condition:
1) That all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other
related transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the
operation of the carnival shall be parked or stored on DRC property
adjacent to the carnival site.
2) If beer is to be sold at the carnival, they must comply with the
State of Michigan regulations.
for the following reasons:
1) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
2) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance ##543.
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, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek,
Engebretson
NAYS: Fandrei
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-2-2-6
by Hyman Weinstein requesting waiver use approval to operate an
entertainment facility providing music and space for dancing within an
existing building located on the northeast corner of Farmington and
Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
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 the waiver use proposal. Also in our
file is a letter received from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objections to this petition.
We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the
operation of an entertainment facility providing music and space
for dancing with an existing building will require a change of use
group from Al to A2. In addition, to allow the establishment to be
occupied for the above referenced purpose, extensive building
alterations will be required by both the Inspection Department and
this Division to bring the building up to current codes. It should
11564
also be noted that there are still outstanding violations, issued
from this Division, existing within this building. The violations
were issued on the new construction to the north side of the
building containing the dressing rooms. Due to the closing of the
establishment, these violations were never corrected.
Nlar We also have in our file a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating:
1. No change has been made in the outside of the existing building
or parking lot. 2. This area has been approved in the past and the
department has no recommendations at this time.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. The building will require waivers from the Livonia Building Code
Board of Appeals for construction code requirements and the State
of Michigan, Department of Labor for barrier free requirements.
2. It is our understanding that this will be a multi-use
entertainment facility consisting of live entertainment, dancing,
and occasionally as a Teen Club. Chapter 5.87 of the Code of
Ordinances provides separate and very stringent requirements for
Teen Clubs. 3. The parking lot is badly cracked and will require
extensive repair and restriping. 4. The shrubs within the
landscaped areas are overgrown and the lawn areas are choked with
weeds. 5. The ground sign, one of the largest in the City at 648
s.f. of sign area, is in very poor structural condition and should
be replaced with a new sign. The directional signs should be
removed or replaced as well.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, have you gotten any answers from any of the communities
that you had written to concerning these types of clubs?
Mr. Nagy: No we have not. We have written to three communities and are
``. awaiting their replies.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Richard Maddin: I am an attorney practicing in Southfield, Michigan. I am here for
Mr. Weinstein, who is the petitioner. I became involved in this
venture just recently and did a good deal of investigating myself
and decided, after talking with Mr. Weinstein, who is here this
evening, that the appropriate thing to do would be to have this
tabled until the next work session on the 9th of April to give us
more opportunity to get the input which we think the community
would want with respect to this type of facility. The reasons are
as follows: Since I became involved we have found out there are
some neighboring communities that have had some bad experiences. I
understand from talking with Mr. Tatigian that there was a lawsuit
that ensued in connection with this particular facility as a result
of another operator who didn't particularly pay too much or the
right kind of attention to the requirements for operating this type
of a facility under the regulations of the community. It is Mr.
Weinstein's sincere desire to provide a very useful, positive
facility. It is non-alcoholic. There will be no alcoholic
beverages served at the facility. This is the type of operation
Mr. Weinstein has previous experience with and we have some
11565
materials that we will share with the Planning Commission between
now and the work session that will give you more details. The
condition of the building is something that has existed prior to
Mr. Weinstein's involvement. We don't expect that it will continue
and certainly those issues that have been raised that Mr. Nagy has
presented from the Building Department, obviously would have to be
Nr addressed. They will be removed to the extent that they will be
revised. They will be revised to conform to the ordinances of the
City. We really sincerely believe that with the opportunity to
meet with the Planning Commission and with the staff and to provide
supplemental information that we think is important, we think this
has the potential of being a quality operation as opposed to some
of the problems that others have had that have disregarded the laws
and regulations of the communities. Perhaps you are surprised but
I think the appropriate thing to do, since we know it is important
for everyone to understand what is to be done and what is needed,
is if you are favorably inclined to do it, would be to table it as
requested to the work session and give us the opportunity to work
with you to give you more detail and move forward in an appropriate
fashion. I am here to answer questions if there are questions
now. Mr. Weinstein is also here and would like that opportunity as
well.
Mr. Engebretson: It may well be appropriate to do as you suggest but this public
hearing, as you well know, has been advertised and there may or may
not be residents who wish to speak to the issue and I think it
would be appropriate and we will go ahead with the public hearing.
Mr. Maddin: I am not suggesting, by making that statement, that your normal
procedure would be altered and certainly to the extent that if
there are people who are here and want to be heard, they should be
` given that opportunity. We would like to hear them ourselves.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we understand each other. You made some valid points
there. There are some major issues on the table that do need to be
addressed and it may not be possible to get through all of them
tonight. We would be interested in hearing from Mr. Weinstein as
to what he has in mind since this is being viewed by the community
and I know there is a certain amount of interest in the issue. I
think we need to give him the opportunity to describe in general
what he plans to do.
Mr. Maddin: We are very happy to do that. As a matter of fact, one thing in my
experience I find is far more useful is something graphic. We have
some printed materials for each of the Commissioners that have been
typed up but I will also suggest right up front there is a
suggestion about the parent being able to leave their child at a
facility and proceed to do what they want and then pick up their
child but obviously under the code, there is a requirement for
those under the age of 17 years they would have to be accompanied
by a parent or guardian. We recognize that and obviously would
make some alterations but we will share the material that needs
some revisions.
`fir.
11566
Hy Weinstein: I propose to open up this entertainment club for the purpose of
giving the people that don't have the opportunity to play
instruments in a particular environment that if they want to
continue, like many artists throughout the country have made a
great deal of money doing, they have to start somewhere. Many of
them have started in this particular club that I had in Southfield.
`om. If there are more questions that you have in mind I would be happy
to answer these.
Mr. Engebretson: What club in Southfield was that sir?
Mr. Weinstein: It was at the Northland Shopping Center. The name of it was the
Northland MUMMP.
Mr. Engebretson: Is it still in operation?
Mr. Weinstein: No. It was a very successful operation. We were giving the
Northland people $2400 a week in rental and what happened, they
made a deal with Oakland Community College that they gave this
structure away. The structure was made of canvas. It was a very
unusual type of structure. That is why we named it the MUMMP.
They gave this away so it put us out of business.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Weinstein, how long ago did you own that?
Mr. Weinstein: Many years ago. I closed it because the clientele changed all over
the country. They had the flower people and that type of people.
I didn't want to go forward with another business like that. I
have been in the jewelry business for over 40 years. I had another
club in Brighton. It was a small club. It housed about 75 people.
That was the first that we opened and the Northland was the second
'guyone.
Mrs. Fandrei: Why do you want to open one now with all the difficulties that so
many of the clubs around us had?
Mr. Weinstein: I don't see the difficulties. I don't see the flower people
anymore. I don't see the people that dress funny anymore. I
really see a need for these folks to come in and enjoy them. This
location is really an inducement to get people to come in and
really act the way they should.
Mr. Maddin: The problems that some of these other facilities have had, they
have either gone forward and done it without getting the
appropriate approvals from the community or not provided the
necessary safeguards to make sure the facility is operated
properly. We have an overall plan which we have in writing and
which we will expand as needed but it provides for a number of
things. It refers to the hours of operation, the ages of the
clientele, the type of entertainment that will be provided,
security that will be provided for the facility, etc. These are
the types of things we have found have been the reasons for the
other failures because of lack of detail and pre-planning and lack
of understanding between the proprietor and community. I think it
is clear this type of facility has to be operated by people who are
'err
11567
going to do the appropriate job. We think we will be able to
convince the Planning Commission and Council that our approach to
this is one that is very serious and very responsible and therefore
the commission should give us the opportunity.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree with Mr. Weinstein. We need a facility for the young
people to go and enjoy themselves and perhaps become more creative.
On the top of the list, one concern I have heard from the community
is drugs. That is the concern of this age group. It has been the
most difficult area to enforce. If you have a way of helping us to
be comfortable, we are open to hearing it.
Mr. Maddin: I think that there is no question that there is a real opportunity
there for that type of a problem. Obviously, what we will do is
work with those people who know more than we do about those types
of problems and what to look for. We will use the existing
security and use the parents who are bringing the children who
would not want tyis type of a problem to exist, to have their eyes
and ears open. Needless to say we would try to be ahead of it
rather than to allow something to begin to develop that would cause
a problem. Part of the issue with respect to drugs is the
perception that they could get away with it.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Weinstein, you are a business man and you are out here to make
a fast buck. This is a valuable piece of property. How are you
going to make any money selling pop and hot dogs?
Mr. Weinstein: There will be a charge of $6.50. The operation will be from 8:00
p.m. to 12:00 p.m. We will have live music.
Mr. Tent: We have many restaurants here in town that say they can't exist
'Noy Wherever
they sell liquor because that is where the profit is.
Wherever you have any type of entertainment, they bring in the
liquor business. To me to go ahead and open up a club of this type
on this valuable piece of property and just sell potato chips and
pop and hot dogs, and charge $6.50 admission doesn't make sense. I
agree with my fellow Commissioners that we do need a place for
young people but your attorney alluded that it becomes a community
problem with enforcement. In other words, we are going to have to
supply our own Livonia Police Department to handle the situation.
We have places that started out in a similar manner and we ran into
problems with that and they had to call in local law enforcement
people to handle it. To me I am concerned to that extent. Not
that we don't need the facility but the fact is how are you going
to control the drugs in the parking lot and the drugs being brought
into the establishment. I would not be in favor of this location
for this type of operation within the City of Livonia.
Mr. Weinstein: In the first place it is a very profitable business. If the amount
of clientele is allowed, which I hope it would be 800 to 1000
people at $6.50 and if you figure it is open four nights a week
plus the Saturday and Sunday afternoon for the youngsters, with
their parent or guardian in attendance, that is a very profitable
business. Security would be a very important part of this
business. You could use Burns or Pinkerton, any one of the
rr,.,
11568
reliable agencies. I intend to have about five in the premises
itself and two outside. They are not going to be allowed to
loiter. We are going to have all the people walk through a metal
detector. People that have purses must open them. They cannot
have liquor in there and if they want to come in, this is what they
are going to have to do. Once they are in, they can't leave. If
'+► we need more, we will have more. We can have ten out there. There
is enough money to be made.
Mr. Tent: Who is going to bankroll this? The last fellow that came in, he
had grandiose ideas but he went belly up.
Mr. Weinstein: I am sorry for that particular incident that you folks had and it
makes it tougher on myself. I am putting all the money up. The
rent is not cheap but you can come out alright if you work it
properly and control it properly. I understand this last fellow
came in and sold tickets and never even talked to the entertainer
and took the money and went away. When any large entertainer comes
in, the charge will be more and people expect it to be more. We
are going to have an agency to handle those tickets.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You say you are going to have an average of 800 per night for four
nights. Although Livonia is an affluent community and their
average pay per household is pretty high, I can't see where Livonia
teenagers would come running down there two and three times a week
to listen to music and dance. I feel if this went in, you would be
drawing from Westland, Redford, Plymouth, Northville, Farmington,
Detroit. You would be benefiting kids in all the other communities
except Livonia. On Sunday our kids go to church twice a day.
Friday night they go to their football and basketball games. This
area is a thorn in our side and has been for the last three years
but I think I would rather have the thorn in the side than a
teenage dance hall in this area.
Mr. Weinstein: It is not only a teenage dance hall. To answer your question,
there is a national group at the Cobo Hall. They bring them from
all over.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is where these should be in Detroit and Southfield with the
big auditoriums. This is our last big building in Livonia and I
think our leaders in the community have different plans than a
teenage nightclub.
Mr. Weinstein: This is not the American way. The American way is everybody should
be given an opportunity.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The American way is we have given you an opportunity and I am
giving my opinion that I am going to vote against it no matter
what.
Mr. LaPine: I have a lot of questions but I will refer them to the study
session. I presume this will be tabled. I just have one question.
When I first heard of this I was under the impression this was
going to be teenagers. Now you are telling me it is going to be
for all kinds of entertainment.
11569
Mr. Weinstein: Here is what it is going to be. It is non-alcoholic. The folks
that went through Alcoholics Anonymous, those folks don't go
anywhere. These folks can come to this on Wednesdays and they can
have music they can dance to. We would like to have concerts.
Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding there are approximately 1400 seats in there.
You are going to take out some of those seats. It is going to be
less 546 seats. Can that support concerts?
Mr. Weinstein: Your figures are wrong. There are going to be approximately 700
seats left. We are taking out every other row.
Mr. Engebretson: We are getting into details that are very difficult to resolve.
I think it is clear we are heading towards a tabling motion. I
think we will go to the audience.
Mona Emerson, 18850 Levan: Before I get started I want to say one thing to Mr.
Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein I was an educator for many years. My
husband is still an educator. I don't know if you have ever been,
for very long, in a room with 800 to 1000 kids but if you haven't,
I suggest you try it. Another thing I want to say is yes the
flower children are gone. They have been replaced by skinheads.
Drugs have proliferated since the 60's, drinking has escalated and
gangs have resurfaced. Before I get started, I want to thank the
Planning Commission for caring so much about what the citizens of
Livonia think and for taking a sincere interest in what these
citizens have to say. It makes me feel good that you work so
diligently for the citizens of Livonia. When a proposal requesting
waiver use approval to operate a teen nightclub at the corner of
Farmington and Plymouth Roads came to my attention, I felt I had to
offer my strong disapproval for such a project and my reasons for
feeling this way. I did my own research. I took the time to find
out where a teen nightclub had been. I took the time. I called
the Westland Police Department to find out what developed when they
had a teen nightclub called Grande Ballroom in the Merriman-Warren
section of Westland. As I understand, this club no longer exists
but did they have problems. They were told the very same thing
that Mr. Weinstein told us here this evening, there would be no
worries, there would be adequate supervision, there would be rules,
there would be regulations. I am going to give you just a short
list of the problems that evolved from this teen nightclub in
Westland. (1) Drinking and drugs out in the parking lot - unable
to control. (2) Drinking and drugs out in the parking lot led to
the sell of drugs. I don't need to explain to you how just those
two problems ballooned to cause more of the same and worse. Kids
were coming from all the communities with the result of gang
fights. There is no way, if you open up that kind of club, that
you can restrict it to the City of Livonia. Kids like to fight
with kids from other communities. Vandalism - teens' cars had
smashed windshields, kicked in doors, smashed headlights, whatever
you could do to vandalize cars. Police protection - yes they
supposedly hired security but the Westland police were called out
there all the time. Who pays for this police protection? Mr.
Weinstein doesn't. We the taxpayers do. We need our police for
11570
the citizens. We do not need them out there taking care of
problems at a teen nightclub. I for one would not want my teenager
involved in this kind of a situation. Fights - did they have
fights. They had fights and they had more fights. Finally,
couldn't you just envision kids cruising up and down Plymouth Road.
Need I further explore what a catastrophe this would be. Although
I don't live near the area, I care about this City and as I view
it, the only one this nightclub will benefit will be the
owner/operator. The losers will be our City, our young people and
the citizen taxpayers of Livonia. We already have adequate
activities for our teens. I can see no positive benefits for such
a nightclub. We have school activities, church activities, etc.
Needless to say I oppose this proposal and I strongly urge this
Planning Commission to reject any teenage nightclub plan and I
thank you again for being such a caring entity.
Mr. Weinstein: That was a very heart warming speech. The taxes on this building
go for the Police Department and the Planning Commission and I
suppose every other department in Livonia. The other thing is I
know these people at the Grande. I know them from many, many years
when I had Northland. They had trouble then. I had no trouble.
The clientele that these people bring in are the clientele I don't
want and I won't get them. They don't come in to an establishment
like this. They come in to an establishment that looks like a drug
store, that looks like a barn. Anything goes with these people. I
know the kind of clientele they have. To answer another question.
The lady said they have enough activities. They have enough
activities everywhere but I don't see anybody coming up the way
they want to come up. They don't have the opportunity to play.
The school has, I am sure, many bands. This club, she calls it a
teen club. Actually it is entertainment club. Yes, they are teens
that come there but we will have other activities. Mr. Tent said
how do you come out? We can produce an audit to you sir how we can
come out. Drugs. There are drugs everywhere. Livonia is not
going to stop the drug problem. I am going to try to control the
drugs. These people are not going to come in with drugs and if
they do, they are going out. This is the control I propose.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-2-2-6 closed.
Mr. McCann: I am going to propose a denying resolution. I have listened very
closely and though Mr. Weinstein may have honorable intentions, I
have been in the security business, I have owned my own company at
one time and I dealt with a teen club situation that was
non-alcoholic and saw personally the type of problems the company
had. One of the problems is the size of the scale you are trying
to do this. When you are talking about 600 kids, you are not going
to control them, especially with five guards inside and two
outside. I had a lot more than that and it is riot what the problem
is. I think we need to do things for the teens but not on this
scale. I don't think it is appropriate.
11571
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#3-49-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Petition 91-2-2-6 by Hyman Weinstein requesting waiver use
approval to operate an entertainment facility providing music and space
for dancing within an existing building located on the northeast corner
``' of Farmington and Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 91-2-2-6 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 19.06
of the 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 proposed use is contrary to the spirit and purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance in that it will not promote the public health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the community.
4) That traffic to and from the site will add significantly to the
traffic congestion in the area.
5) That the subject building does not comply with all of the
requirements and standards as set forth in the Building Code and
the State of Michigan, Department of Labor barrier free
requirements.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
*111. 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, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: Gniewek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-2-2-7
by the Livonia Rotary Club requesting waiver use approval to hold a
carnival in the parking lot of the shopping center located on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Haller and Middlebelt Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
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 the waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no
objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter from
Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this petition.
11572
Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the
following recommendations are submitted for your consideration: 1.
The plan allows for 10 handicapped parking places and 253 10-foot
spaces in the lot. 2. With consideration given to the above, no
provision has been shown for parking of equipment trailers,
transports, and mobile homes which would cut the usable area down
even more. 3. Without adequate on site parking, patrons will be
parking in the lots across Middlebelt and Plymouth Roads and
walking to the site, thus causing a traffic/pedestrian hazard at
that intersection. 4. With the dates from April 1 through April
14, all the above hazards would be compounded by an event of that
duration.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Bill MacDonald of the
Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems
were found. However, we do have some concerns which we feel the
Commission should address: 1. Signs 2. Sanitary facilities 3.
Litter 4. Noise and its impact on the residential area to the east
5. Requiring the camper trucks and trailers that normally accompany
this type of operation to be as far as is possible from the
residents on Haller.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Tom Armstrong, 30500 Plymouth Road: I am President of the Livonia Rotary Club. We
are requesting the waiver use to hold a carnival for a fund raiser.
For the intricacies of the parking of the heavy equipment and
trailers, etc. , I believe they would be parked behind the
buildings. The area behind the buildings is more than an adequate
area to park the trailers and heavy equipment back there. As far
as parking facilities are concerned, I don't think the Police
fir.► Department's letter is completely accurate. There are only three
existing businesses in that structure at this point in time. There
is a drug store. There is a ladies apparel shop and there is a
medical facility. That takes up approximately the first 120 feet
of the building on the west end. The rest of the area is all
vacant. Having visited the area many, many times, there should be
no problem with the parking. I am not an expert but I would like
to answer any questions.
Mrs. Fandrei: There are three buildings being occupied but one of the larger
empty buildings is being renovated for use in the near future.
Also, what part of the back area were you looking at for storage?
Do you know what percentage or approximately how much of it? When
I was back there a lot of the parking spaces were being taken up by
the workmen. A good part of that parking lot is being utilized
there during daytime hours. What is the busiest time for the
carnival?
Mr. Armstrong: The carnival will be in operation from April 1 through April 14.
12:00 to 1:00 a.m. on the weekends and we will open around 3:00
p.m. or 4:00 p.m. during the week. Most trade people are off the
property by 4:00 p.m. I wasn't aware there was anyone working
there.
11573
Mr. Vyhnalek: The area Brenda was alluding to in the back of the store. I
presume you are just going to have one unit for Wade Shows, which
is a small unit. Could you describe what you are going to have
there?
Tim Jenkins, 429 McKinley, Grosse Pointe Farms: That unit that will be coming in
will consist of 13 to 15 rides including rides for all age groups
including kiddie rides, 10 to 12 game concessions and 2 booth
concessions. There will be approximately 4 to 6 storage trailers
in the back. As I understand it, those contractors are infringing
on that property. They do not have permission to park there. It
is just a convenient place for them to park.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What I am getting at is when you come in on the night you will set
up, you are going to park those trailers back behind the buildings
to the north and the workers can't park there anyways because you
are going to have that all blocked off with trailers. They will
have to park out in front until approximately 4:00 p.m. and that is
when your customers will start coming in. Is Firestone a member of
the Rotary?
Mr. Armstrong: No Sir.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is going to happen to his property.
Mr. Armstrong: We do not infringe on his parking at all.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you talked to him?
Mr. Armstrong: No.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Don't you think it would be a good idea?
Mr. Armstrong: A suggestion well taken.
Mr. Tent: Did I understand that on weekends you will be operating until 12:00
- 1:00 a.m. in the morning?
Mr. Jenkins: Twelve noon until 1:00 p.m. is opening time. Closing time would be
whatever the City ordinances are. We normally close either 10:00
p.m. or 11:00 p.m. whatever the City ordinances require.
Mr. Tent: Was there any reason for submitting this application so late?
Mr. Armstrong: We had another location and we found this one was going to be
available and we found it was a much better location. It is not
easy to find an area that is reasonably acceptable.
Mr. Tent: The problems that Mr. MacDonald stated in his letter with the signs
and the sanitary facilities, etc. will all be taken care of?
Mr. Armstrong: Yes we will take care of that.
Mr. LaPine: After you set up, how many parking spaces will you have?
Mr. Armstrong: Approximately 253 according to the Police Department.
11574
Mr. LaPine: From past carnivals, how many cars do you normally run through
there on a Friday or Saturday?
Mr. Jenkins: That is a real guesstimate. I would anticipate that the maximum
would be in the neighborhood of 175 to 200 cars at any one time.
`r• Mr. LaPine: I would assume all the carnival workers would park behind the
building.
Mr. Jenkins: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Do the carnival workers stay on trailers at the location?
Mr. Jenkins: Some stay on location and some off.
Mr. Engebretson: I haven't heard anyone address the five points made in Mr.
MacDonald's letter from that side of the podium relative to
sanitary facilities, litter, noise impact, etc.
Mr. Jenkins: I didn't write them down. I will try to go through them by memory.
There will be no signs except internal signs on the rides and a
safety sign when you first come in. Sanitary facilities - there
will be four to six porta johns brought in that will be cleaned out
every other day. Residential noise - there is our policy to turn
off the music approximately one hour before closing, in this case
probably about 10:00 p.m. Litter - we do a daily clean up. At the
end of the night we do the immediate surrounding area and before
leaving we do the entire area.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-2-2-7 closed.
`' On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-48-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 91-2-2-7 by the Livonia Rotary Club requesting
waiver use approval to hold a carnival in the parking lot of the
shopping center located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Haller and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, be
approved subject to the following condition:
1) That all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other
related transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the
operation of the carnival shall be parked or stored to the north or
rear of the shopping center building but no closer to the east
property line than 100 feet.
for the following reasons:
1) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
2) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06
of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
11575
and further that the Planning Commission waive the requirement found in
Section 10 of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure which states
that resolutions adopted shall become effective seven (7) days after the
adoption of said resolution.
__ 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, passed the gavel to Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-2-2-8
by Linda Fillinger requesting waiver use approval to utilize a portion
of the garage of an existing residence located at 20090 Milburn, south
of Eight Mile Road between Merriman and Purlingbrook in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 2 for a dog grooming service.
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 the waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they have no
objections as long as the operation is as described. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no
objections to this proposal.
°4ku" Also in our file is a letter from William Craig of 20050 Milburn
stating: I work an afternoon shift. I cannot attend the public
hearing scheduled for March 19, 1991. f allowed, I would like to
enter this written statement regarding Petition 91-2-2-8 by Linda
Fillinger. I, William Craig, live at 20050 Milburn. I am Linda
Fillinger's next door neighbor on the south side of their house. I
have no objection to Linda Fillinger utilizing a portion of her
garage at 20090 Milburn for a dog grooming service. I would like
my statement entered in the minutes. I want to be able to support
my neighbor's petition, and hopefully cause you to decide in her
favor. Thank you for your consideration.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found and their
office has no objections to the proposal. However, we should point
out that this item is before the Commission as a result of a
complaint this Department received, we assume, from a neighbor. As
the Commission is aware, a Waiver will run with the land. There is
no practical way of ensuring that the low level of activity found
today will continue with either the present owner or any future
owner of this property.
Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner present?
11576
Linda Fillinger, 20090 Milburn: I request a waiver for my dog grooming in my
garage. My immediate neighbors have not objected and I want to
continue dog grooming. I don't know who complained but I am open
for suggestions.
`rt. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, on this petition, it requires a waiver use for it to be
approved. She was running this operation under no existing license
is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Tent: If we grant this waiver use, up to this point there was no problem,
but if we go ahead and give this waiver use, that means that here
on in that property can be used for this purpose. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: With limitations that you impose upon it.
Mr. Tent: If Mrs. Fillinger sold the property to someone else, they could
continue the same kind of business?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Tent: There is no way we could allow her to continue on without giving
her this waiver so once we grant this, this is it forever.
Mr. Nagy: The present use is unlawful. It is not a valid non-conforming use
and therefore it can't be grandfathered in.
Mr. McCann: Mrs. Fillinger, how many dogs do you do in a day?
Mrs. Fillinger: Two or three. Three to four a week.
Mr. McCann: Do you do it on weekends?
Mrs. Fillinger: Occasionally on Saturday.
Mr. McCann: If we put in some restrictions because as Mr. Tent stated we have
some deep concerns. You are obviously running a very good
operation that your immediate neighbors don't object to. If
someone else moves into your house they could start running a
different operation so what I am looking at is to put some
limitations in. You would have no problem with that?
Mrs. Fillinger: No not at all.
Mr. McCann: You wouldn't have a problem with having no more than four dogs on
the premises at one time and limiting it Monday through Saturday?
Mrs. Fillinger: That is fine.
Mr. Gniewek: Apparently this is something that kind of blossomed and became very
successful for you. Have you investigated moving into some more
commercial location?
11577
Mrs. Fillinger: I like keeping it personal and I am at home. I don't want to
expand it commercially. I have three kids at home and I enjoy
doing it at home.
Mr. Gniewek: You haven't done any research, you just want to stay there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You do not have any dogs stay overnight?
Mrs. Fillinger: No.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What would be your first appointment in the morning?
Mrs. Fillinger: Usually it is nine o'clock.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Nothing after 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m.?
Mrs. Fillinger: I don't take appointments that late.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You have two neighbors on both sides. What about across the
street?
Mrs. Fillinger: They don't object.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-2-2-8 closed.
Mr. LaPine: I intend to vote against this proposal. Not that I have anything
against the petitioner but it is my position that grant you the
neighbors living there now have no objections but we have always
tried to keep businesses out of residential areas. This is a
business. The other thing that worries me is once we grant this,
it goes with the land and the next person that moves in, there
might be problems with them. For that reason I cannot vote for
this.
Mr. McCann: I understand your concerns and I think with the limitations, she
said three dogs a day, maybe four. She would not be able to do
this in a commercial center. She limits the time and the quality.
I don't think anyone could ever go in there to buy that house for
the purpose of having a dog grooming service. This is more of a
hobby. I think by approving this and putting restrictions on it,
we do have the control that is necessary.
Mr. LaPine: Where do you draw the line? I was on the Zoning Board of
Appeals and we heard many cases where women were operating beauty
parlors out of their house. Every case we denied because it was a
business in a residential neighborhood. That is why we have
commercial zones in the City to operate businesses. Residential
neighborhoods are not to be used for business. Mr. McCann has his
opinion. I have mine.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
11578
#3-50-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Petition 91-2-2-8 by Linda Fillinger requesting waiver use
approval to utilize a portion of the garage of an existing residence
located at 20090 Milburn, south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman and
Purlingbrook in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 for a dog grooming
service, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
'411mr Council that Petition 91-2-2-8 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the operation shall be confined to the portion of the garage
as illustrated on the Site Plan which is the south 7.6 feet of the
garage.
2) That there shall be no more than 4 dogs on the premises at any one
time as represented by the petitioner.
3) That there shall be no overnight boarding of dogs.
4) That the operation shall be limited from Monday through Saturday.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed is in compliance with all of the waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 5.03 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 has minimal adverse effects on the
surrounding residential property 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: McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, Vyhnalek, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei
ABSENT: None
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, returned the gavel to Mr. Engebretson, Chairman.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Oak-Villa Subdivision proposed to be located on the west
side of Inkster between Joy Road and West Chicago in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 36.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
11579
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Division of Fire stating they
have no objections to this development. We have also received a
letter from the Department of Parks and Recreation stating they do
not find any discrepancies or problems; however, it would be
desirable that the developer save as many trees as possible on the
New property.
Also in our file is a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they note that several lots in the areas of the cul-de-sac
or eyebrow sections of the street system have 40' - 42' lot
frontages. This typical lot frontage translates to an approximate
32' length of curb at the curb line which will accommodate a 20'
wide drive approach. Therefore, there is no area in front of the
"pie-shaped" lots in which to park additional vehicles on the
street without being in conflict with adjacent drive approaches.
Consideration should be given by the developer to either (a)
increasing the widths of this type of lot or, (b) increasing the
minimum set-back requirement for these homes to accommodate greater
on-site parking.
We have also received a letter from the Division of Police stating
the following is submitted for our consideration: 1. Street names
should be consistent with existing names to facilitate emergency
and delivery services. 2. Except for lot 31, no ingress or egress
onto or from Inkster Road from driveways. 3. Streets only 30'
wide, not the standard 31' . 4. Stop signs will be needed for the
south and north streets. 5. No sidewalks depicted on plan.
Lastly, we have received a letter from ten property owners in the
area stating they would prefer to see a group of professional
office buildings or a business be built there instead of homes
`"r since then the area would probably be left more in its country like
state. They further stated it probably was not feasible or it
would have been proposed before.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Steven Shaeffer, 5499 Commerce Road, West Bloomfield: What we propose is a 47
home site subdivision which we plan on building and developing
ourselves through the Phoenix Land Development Company. We are
partners with Alan J. Schmier, who has purchased the property from
the Archdiocese of Detroit. Some of the issues that were raised
from the different departments, I would like to address. We do
have a large number of mature trees along Inkster Road. We would
absolutely like to save those. In my previous developments that
has always been a big concern. I feel it is good to leave as many
trees as you can. I will take whatever precautions necessary that
I have to take to protect the trees. Also, there was a concern
brought up by Engineering as far as off-street parking and I fully
agree with that. These lots on the cul-de-sac are quite large and
we were able to set those homes back in order to provide parking
for those vehicles off street. We did have another layout that we
originally proposed and under that layout we had one more home
site. I feel, after meeting with Planning, that there were some
good suggestions made that we opted to change this plan around and
''rr.
11580
I think it is going to be more appealing than originally planned.
I would like to pass out some brochures. This is a current
development that we have over in Canton Township. Our prices range
from $89,000 to $106,000. We offer three styles of homes. I have
been building for eight years. I enjoy working with young buyers
,,- and working with individuals who are first time home buyers. We
don't require any individuals to take construction loans. Whatever
their particular financial situation may be, we will work with them
on down payments, purchase agreements, etc. Sometimes they have
homes they have to sell. Basically we don't spec too much. The
houses that we are proposing to build, the first one is a 1825
square foot tri-level. Then there is a 1321 square foot ranch and
then a 1450 square foot colonial. We also would like to create
sign easements, fieldstone entryways and additional landscaping.
Basically that is about it. All utilities are there.
Mr. LaPine: Are these going to be brick homes?
Mr. Shaeffer: Yes. We offer a number of different elevations. All have brick on
front only with inter-lock siding.
Mr. LaPine: What does the tri-level sell for?
Mr. Shaeffer: It starts at $98,900.
Mr. LaPine: The ranches are cheaper?
Mr. Shaeffer: We develop the property and price them accordingly and we try to
price them to sell quickly. The tri-level and ranches are the same
so they are the same price.
'` Mr. LaPine: The colonial will be $100,000?
Mr. Shaeffer: We would like to price all the homes in the $90,000's.
Mr. LaPine: If everything goes according to plan, will you start this project
this year?
Mr. Shaeffer: Absolutely. As soon as we can get it started we would like to
proceed with the project.
Mr. LaPine: What are your streets going to be., concrete?
Mr. Shaeffer: I assume they would be.
Mr. Vyhnalek: There is not going to be any walkway to get over to Cardwell?
Mr. Shaeffer: Absolutely not.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I believe it is up to the individual owners what they put in the
back.
Mr. Shaeffer: That is correct.
Mr. Vyynalek: One neighbor was concerned but it is up to every individual home
Now
owner.
11581
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for
Oak-Villa Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
`411m. it was
#3-51-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March
19, 1991 on Preliminary Plat approval for Oak-Villa Subdivision proposed
to be located on the west side of Inkster between Joy Road and West
Chicago in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for
Oak-Villa Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of the open
space requirement set forth in Section 9.09 of the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations and to the following additional conditions:
1) That a landscape plan showing the landscape treatment of the
required greenbelts along the Inkster Road frontage be submitted to
the Planning Commission for their approval prior to the approval of
the Final Plat.
2) That a plan for the required subdivision entrance marker be
submitted to the Planning Commission for their approval prior to
the approval of the Final Plat.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all of the
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That no City Department objects to the approval of the Preliminary
Plat.
3) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a well designed land
use solution to the development of the subject land.
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. 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.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
#3-52-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 618th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 19, 1991 are
approved.
11582
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McCann, Tent
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-53-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 619th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on March 5, 1991 are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-54-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
91-3-8-2 by Unity of Livonia Church requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct an accessory use addition to an existing church on
the north side of Five Mile between Harrison and Middlebelt in Section
13, subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 91007, Sheet S-1 as revised on 3/15/91 prepared by
HSM and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan 91007, Sheet a-2 dated 2/20/91 prepared by HSM
and Associates 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 by by LaPine, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#3-55-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 91-3-8-3 by Kamp-DiComo Associates requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 29.02 of Zoning Ordinance ##543
in connection with a proposal to construct a 20 unit senior clergy
village on the west side of Levan between Schoolcraft and Five Mile in
Section 20, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 90-21, Sheet A-1 prepared by Kamp Di-Como Associates
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan 90-21, Sheets A-3 and A-4 prepared by
Kamp-DiComo Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That Landscape Plan 90-21, Sheet L-1 prepared by Kamp-DiComo
Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
'tor
11583
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#3-56-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by City Sign Co. , Inc.
requesting approval to erect a wall sign on a building located at 33050
Five Mile Road, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That Sign Drawing for Allstate prepared by City Sign Co. , Inc. is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That any window signage be limited to no more than 25% of the
window area of the building.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 620th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on March 19, 1991 was adjourned at 11:59 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Brenda Lee Fandrei, secretary
'0111. /
5
ATTEST: Q� 4 :--
Jac Engebreitson , Chairman
jg