HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1991-04-30 11591
MINUTES OF THE 622nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 30, 1991, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 622nd 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 60 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.
Slur
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
91-3-1-7 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#46-91, requesting to rezone property located on the northeast corner of
Bretton Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1
from OS to RUF.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have also
received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to this petition.
We have also received a letter from Alan C. Helmkamp, attorney for
Paul DelGiudice stating:
I am writing on behalf of my client Paul DelGiudice with respect to
the captioned petition. This letter is submitted in lieu of my
appearance at the Public Hearing on April 30, 1991. I have only
recently become involved in this matter and have a previous
commitment for Tuesday night.
11592
The DelGiudice family has owned the parcel in question, which
consists of three lots, for almost 20 years. During that time the
parcel has not been dedicated to commercial use, despite its OS
zoning classification. There are single family houses located on
two of the three lots, which are tenant occupied, while the third
lot is vacant. The DelGiudice family is strongly opposed to the
down-zoning of its property to RUF. The current OS zoning is
consistent with the essentially non-residential character of the
`' surrounding area of Middlebelt Road. The current classification is
also consistent with the City Master Plan.
The key thing which I need to stress is that my client's parcel
currently carries an SEV of $168,640.00. Winter 1990 taxes
amounted to $9,774.07. It seems inequitable to have these people
pay a commercial rate for almost 20 years only to rezone their
property and most likely depreciate the value.
Mr. Paul DelGiudice will be present at the hearing on April 30 to
supply further information and answer your questions. Thereafter,
it would be appreciated if you would make a strong recommendation
against rezoning to the City Council. Thank you for your time and
cooperation.
Mr. Engebretson: John, would you please take a moment and describe briefly, for
the benefit of the audience, how this petition came about?
Mr. Nagy: As we indicate on the agenda for tonight's meeting, this petition
by the City Planning Commission is pursuant to a Council Resolution
by the Council of the City of Livonia. The Council has directed
the Planning Commission to hold a hearing to consider whether or
not the zoning on this property should or should not be changed to
a residential classification. This came about as a result of a
previous petition some months ago when a private party brought a
petition before the City in connection with rezoning the area from
an office service classification to a commercial or C-1
classification. That petition was subsequently denied by both the
Planning Commission and the City Council and the City Council,
after disposing of that petition, did authorize through a Council
resolution the Planning Commission to initiate this petition that
is before us this evening to see if office zoning is appropriate
for the area given the surrounding uses and the development in the
area. That is what we are holding a hearing on tonight to hear the
comments of the affected property owner as well as other residents
in the area on the question of whether or not this zoning should or
should not be changed.
Mr. Engebretson: Since this is the City's petition, we will skip by the
petitioner's phase and give the landowner, Mr. DelGiudice, the
opportunity to make his remarks.
Paul DelGiudice, 3815 North Woodward, Royal Oak, 48073: I would like to ask the
Planning Commission to retain the OS zoning. I understand why the
petition was put before the Planning Commission. That was sent
from the City Council after the proposed petition to rezone to
commercial. After reviewing the minutes of the meetings, in
11593
regards to the rezoning from office to commercial, it seems like
most of the neighbor complaints that came out in these meetings
were mainly based on commercial uses that they thought would
attract the kids from the high school and junior high and cause
more mess and general disturbance in the area. I am also sure
there is an office use that could be found that could make
N everybody happy. I am sure it could be landscaped and put in there
right. We are interested in possibly selling the property for
"- someone to do an office type development. The main problem right
now is there is a real problem. The real estate market has been
real slow. We have also had the property listed for a number of
years and because of the general area and because of the commercial
in the area and the closeness of the mall, most of the people
interested are interested in commercial zoning. It would be very
difficult for us to sell the property as residential especially
when you consider that the state equalized value is approximately
$170,000 and also when you take into consideration that we have
been paying about $10,000 a year in taxes. There is no good way to
put anything in there residential that will work out well for us.
We would be more than interested, once we had the proper office
use, to sit down with the neighbors and make sure everyone would be
happy with what was going to go in there. If you have any
questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Tent: Mr. DelGiudice, you own two homes on the property now. What are
your intentions with those two homes?
Mr. DelGiudice: At this point, because of taxes on the property, it is very helpful
to rent the two homes that are on there. It offsets the property
taxes. We would like to continue to rent them but our main goal
there would be to have some kind of office development.
Mr. Tent: I have a letter here before me that indicates there was an on-site
`" inspection and there were some things that needed fixing up. If
you were successful in retaining the zoning as is, until you could
sell it would you be amenable to do some of the police up work that
is required on that property?
Mr. DelGiudice: We received that notice about two months ago and I told the
Building Department we had completed things that were listed on
that violation and those have all been completed to the best of my
knowledge and I am not sure if the Building Department has
re-inspected but they have been corrected.
Mr. Tent: I would commend you for following up on it.
Lester Cox, 29204 Bretton, Lot 446: I have been there 14 years and these three
properties, they have never done anything to them. I would like to
see that changed into something else. The school kids go to and
from school there and they get their pizza and go up in the woods
and do whatever they do. That first big house, I understand the
floor of the basement is all broken up and when it rains they have
to go down there and drain it out. It has been that way ever since
I have been there.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, what does the Future Land Use Plan designate this as?
Mr. Nagy: As office services.
11594
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-3-1-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
##4-71-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Petition 91-3-1-7 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #46-91, requesting to rezone property located on
*4101. the northeast corner of Bretton Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from OS to RUF, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-3-1-7 be
denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is not supported by the Future
Land Use Plan which is consistent with the existing OS zoning
district.
2) That the existing OS zoning district provides a buffer or
transition zone between the adjacent residential uses in the area
and Middlebelt Road, a major thoroughfare.
3) That the existing OS zoning district adjacent to a major
thoroughfare provides for uses which will be both compatible to
adjacent residential uses in the area as well as uses which utilize
a major thoroughfare to provide for easy access to the public.
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, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: 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 91-4-1-8
by Castillo Company, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the
west side of Middlebelt 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 this proposal. We have also received a
letter from Thomas Guastello asking if there was any chance to get
them to add a de-acceleration lane on their side (west side) like
the one they are putting in on their side. Also in our file is a
letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to this
petition.
11595
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, isn't it true that we also have the three lots above this
particular lot under rezoning also?
Mr. Nagy: That is true. Lots 16, 17 and 18 are currently pending before the
City Council in connection with a rezoning petition also seeking a
change from the RUF classification to office services.
Mr. Gniewek: Is this in keeping with the Future Land Use Plan?
Noir
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: John, the de-acceleration lane would be taken up at such time as
the property was developed?
Mr. Nagy: Precisely.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
John McKinney: I am an attorney. I represent the petitioner. This is really a
housekeeping chore here. We were originally before you, as one of
the Commissioners already indicated, on Lots 16, 17 and 18 and you
recommended to the City Council that those be rezoned. That would
have left that one residential lot as spot zoned and so we talked
with the owner of the property and he was amenable to asking you to
rezone his property also. This lot is sandwiched between the State
Farm Service Center to the south and, we hope, the proposed new
State Farm Service Center, which will be on Lots 16, 17 and 18.
This is really a housekeeping thing. It makes sense not to have
that one residential area between the two non-residential uses.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. McKinney, the owner of that particular property is not planning
on any type of development at this time? He just plans to continue
utilizing it as a residence as long as he desires to stay there.
Is that correct?
Mr. McKinney: Yes. We have negotiated with him to try and purchase the lot and
he wants to sell it and we want to buy it but we are quite a ways
apart on price. He has requested, and we have indicated, that if
we purchased the lot from him he could do that, that he be allowed
to live there for as long as he wants. He doesn't have any plans
to move at the present time although if we can reach an agreement
as to price, he may change his mind. So far as I know, he wants to
live there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If you would buy that, what would you do with it?
Mr. McKinney: We don't have any present plans for it. Our plan is to use Lots
16, 17 and 18 but we still have ownership of the parcel to the
south and it would probably be used as a greenbelt type area. We
don't have any plans because we haven't been able to buy it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is big enough to put a small office building on it.
Mr. McKinney: That would not be our plan. If we were able to purchase it, it
would be used in conjunction with the facility to the south or the
new one.
11596
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, if this petition was successful and the zoning was
changed from RUF to OS, would it affect the tax structure. Would
that increase the taxes? Would the property then be valued as OS
property or would this be grandfathered in as RUF until he disposes
of it?
Mr. Nagy: I don't feel I am qualified to comment on that. I think to get a
correct answer, you would have to direct that through the
Assessor's office to try and get a more factual opinion. I would
think it would still be assessed on the basis of its use but I am
not the authority.
Mr. Tent: In the past that was the condition. I am just wondering whether
that philosphy has changed. In this case here, if it has changed,
then he will be assessed at the higher value and that might force
him to sell.
Mr. McKinney: We talked to Mr. Burnside, the owner of the property, about that
situation. He believes, as do I, that the assessed valuation of
the property will increase and still knowing that he has decided to
have the property rezoned. It is his asset and it is enhanced in
value if it is rezoned. He has every right to sell that lot. That
lot is usable as an office site without being used in conjunction
with the land to the south or the north.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, could we get an answer for future reference? When we do
go through a zoning change, if it is successful, does it
immediately appreciate in value or stay status quo until it is
disposed of?
Brian Harris, 14010 Beatrice: As you can notice, Beatrice has a curve right there
and the back of that lot is like 20 to 30 feet from my house and my
understanding is with the three lots, they would be required to
have a brick wall all the way around the OS zoning, and I am
definitely against having a brick wall put up. This whole area is
wide open and lots of wildlife live back there. If you notice on
the C-1 how far to the east the property line is but as we come
closer to my lot that would bring it well into my area. I have
already also pursued Mr. Burnside and he refused to sell to me the
back portion of that lot. If, in fact, he were to sell, I would
like to have the opportunity to at least purchase right between Lot
198 and 199 forward. I don't know if Mr. Burnside brought this
petition up or if it was State Farm but he had told me at that time
it was not worth his time to have the back end surveyed but now it
is being rezoned so to me this would be an opportune time, if they
were going to go through with it, to let me keep that back end
residential. I just want to keep that open if State Farm does buy
the land.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, the use would determine the wall in this case, wouldn't
it?
Mr. Nagy: Precisely. It would be a prerequisite upon the issuance of an
occupancy permit for the building but the zoning change itself
would not precipitate the construction of a wall.
11597
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-4-1-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-72-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Petition 91-4-1-8 by Castillo Company, Inc. 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 recommend to
the City Council that Petition 91-4-1-8 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of
non-residential zoning in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with a proposed
change of zoning on adjacent property to the north which the
Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
4) That the proposed change of zoning will prevent any further
northerly extension of commercial zoning in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-4-1-9
by B & K Development, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the
north side of Plymouth Road west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 30 from RUF 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
they note that Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest
extent (60' ) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare
Plan. Further, there are no City maintained storm sewers readily
available to service the subject site. The nearest storm sewer
outlet is located at the intersection of Newburgh and Plymouth
Roads. This off-site construction may require easements and/or
public right-of-way north of the current right-of-way line of
Newburgh Road. Also in our file is a letter from Detroit Edison
stating they have no objections to this petition.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present:
11598
Melvin Belovicz, 9337 Newburgh Road: I would like to get this property rezoned to
R-1, which is single family, with an option to use it as a cluster
use. I have a couple of layouts we did. I would like to basically
build condominiums in there.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess I am curious why you are looking for R-1 zoning instead
of R-C zoning.
Nur Mr. Nagy: We do have an R-C, which is residential condominium classification
but it would permit a significantly higher density than the R-1,
which is being proposed. I think the petitioner is trying to give
you a housing density consistent with R-1, the residential density
of the neighboring area, rather than doing it in the conventional
manner of individual subdivision lots. He wants to use a
condominium approach to the project. That is the way I read his
petition.
Mr. Belovicz: I haven't developed any plans but I have done a couple of layouts
to see how it would lay out. The problem is it being adjacent to
Hygrades, as far as a subdivision goes I don't think that would
work out too good and with the adjacent seniors on the other side,
it lays out pretty nice. The density is about six units to the
acre. It is 69 units. It would probably be more towards seniors,
50 and up, and probably run 1000 to 1200 square foot, similar to
what I am doing on Newburgh but I think I would downsize that a
little and try to keep the price down a little because of the
adjacency to Hygrades. I think cost would be a consideration.
Mr. Tent: You indicated that you were after a residential zoning, which you
are pursuing for residential homes, whether it be single family or
cluster. If you were successful in getting the zoning, would you
be amenable to the 44 single family unit approach as to cluster
development. You said either/or and I, as one planner, would favor
the 44 single family lots.
Mr. Belovicz: I don't think that would be a thing I would want to put in there.
The reason I am going with the R-1 with cluster option, it has the
density I needed. The R-C would be if I wanted a higher density.
I am happy with the density from the R-1 zoning with the cluster
option and your new R-C zoning is something brand new. I don't
know if it has been used yet. I know when I was in last time they
hadn't even enacted it. The R-1 is a little more understandable.
I didn't quite understand the parameters of the R-C but what I want
to do can be done under R-1 so I talked it over with Planning and
we thought that would be the best approach but I do want to do the
cluster as opposed to single family. Backing up to Hygrades there
is a noise problem there now that I didn't become aware of until
after I applied for the zoning. I was walking the piece of land
and I heard some noise from Hygrades, which I think is being worked
out by Hygrades right now, so part of what I do in there is going
to determine some noise level studies that I do.
Mr. Tent: Our understanding is the noise level has been addressed. That was
a bearing noise they had in the system and that is being corrected.
11599
Mr. Belovicz: In any case, part of what I address will be contingent with the use
of Hygrades in there.
Mr. Morrow: I guess I have to be careful how I phrase this because we are
looking at zoning here tonight and we seem to be working on whether
it is going to be cluster, 44 lots, how it is going to be platted.
As my fellow Commissioners know, we cannot condition zoning.
Whether you think you are going to develop condominium type
"tr" residential in there would not be a part of this action here
tonight. It is a subsequent action. That may be denied further
down the road. Whether or not there is a noise in the background
is not germane here tonight. What we want to study, is R-1
appropriate in that particular area. Subsequent action will
determine what will go in there as far as platting and use. I just
thought we were drifting a little further away.
Mr. Belovicz: I am a little confused. I wanted to do the cluster option under
R-1 but I wanted to approach it saying I want R-1 and I do intend
to do the cluster option as opposed to coming in as a condo. What
I want to do is the cluster option. I am just announcing that up
front.
Mr. Engebretson: That is how I interpreted your comments and appreciate your being
up front about that.
Mr. Morrow: I wanted to make sure that whatever we do here tonight does not
condition our zoning in any way, shape or form.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The confusion started when he said condominiums.
Mr. Belovicz: When I say condominiums, it is a form of ownership. It is not a
design criteria. Cluster is when I develop it under R-1 with the
cluster option.
Mr. Engebretson: The R-1 provides him the ability to do several different types of
development and as Mr. Morrow pointed out it is not really the
issue tonight although it is hard to ignore the fact that those
things are a reality.
Mr. LaPine: Just so he understands, if we decide tonight we are going to rezone
it to R-1, don't leave here tonight with the thought in your mind
you are going to get cluster homes. That will be taken up when you
come in with the plans. We may not want the cluster homes. We may
want you to build single family homes. Just because you get the
zoning, it doesn't mean you are going to get the cluster.
Mr. Belovicz: Does this have to come back to the Planning Commission again for
the cluster?
Mr. LaPine: For site plan approval.
Mr. Belovicz: I would be willing, if it got zoned R-1, to bring it back for
cluster to get it approved.
11600
Scott Heinzman, 37601 Grantland: We have been haggling over this piece of land for
a long time. Most of us would prefer it be left alone. We realize
that is probably not realistic. Myself and several other people on
our street are not against R-1 for single family housing.
Forty-four units is not bad. We are concerned about traffic and
density, especially with the Newburgh Village going in and the R-7
across the street. A little ways down there are some apartments
and condominiums. There are a lot of multi-family units going in
Now the area. Development occurred too quickly in that area. That
intersection at Plymouth Road and Newburgh with Hines Drive, Ann
Arbor Drive and Ann Arbor Trail, is a very congested area.
Obviously more homes means more traffic and more problems. I would
also like to express an opinion about the Hygrades plant. I don't
understand what difference it makes if someone owns a home or a
condominium next to the Hygrades plant. You are going to live
there. You are going to own that property. I don't see what
difference it makes whether it is a condominium or a single family
house. I would like to see something go in there that is more
affordable. A lot of the new construction in the City is in the
$200,000 plus range. I would like for young families to be able to
move in and to enjoy the quality of security and the quality of
Livonia public schools and for families to be able to live there.
I am concerned about this being for people 50 years old and up.
Karl Berghoffer, 38101 Grantland: My property is the last corner there next to
Hygrades. I agree with Scott about what he said about the property
and the residential area there but if you can't do anything about
the noise, I wouldn't want anybody living there.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you referring to this defective bearing? It is not germane
to the issue tonight but I want you to know the Planning Department
became aware of that and did ask the Inspection Department to go
down there and it is our understanding it is some kind of a
Now defective bearing that has been causing this problem. Hopefully
you will get some relief.
Mary Hirschlieb, 37651 Grantland: We are by your senior citizens, which we fully
approve. It was part of an answer to a prayer. I read the
petition. I though this is it, single family homes 60 x 120.
After 40 years of living there, I thought we had it made. I walked
in in a state of shock when they said the man was going to suggest
clusters, condos. I thought we fought all this down before. I was
hoping our area would have been saved and I am still hoping it is.
A lot of us have lived with Hygrades and I thought oh great we are
going to get all these senior citizens in here and are we going to
have power behind us now because they are surely going to listen to
them. So I am still in high hopes and hope to see some single
family homes there. We have 1/2 acres, which is ideal, and 60 x
120 is about half that. It is a beautiful area to live in. We
have enjoyed Livonia many years and it is a great City. We travel
extensively and we always come home.
Tom Green, 37721 Grantland: Years ago you came out with a Master Plan, which has
worked out tremendously. (Mr. Green pointed out area that is RUF)
These people have to park on the street if they have two cars.
There is no off street parking here at all. We would really like
to see this stay RUF. We would appreciate it very much.
11601
Edwin Koziol, 11790 Jarvis: This is on the south side of Plymouth Road. I have
talked to several neighbors since this came to my house and the
neighbors are not here from Jarvis because we are all in agreement.
We were here before with Dr. Mendelsohn on this piece of property
and multiple dwellings and two and three stories. We have had a
lot of talk over this property, as well as the piece of property
here that they finally got R-7. I was in shock when this man said
a cluster of homes. Why didn't this paper say a cluster of homes.
Now I am wasting my time being here tonight. I appreciate Mr. Morrow
for correcting this man in the procedure you go through. Now we
have to go through this step all over again. I thank you.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this petition and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-4-1-9 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#4-73-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Petition 91-4-1-9 by B & K Development, Inc. requesting to
rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road west of
Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-1, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 91-4-1-9 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan which designates the subject area as medium density
residential, a classification which includes uses permitted by the
proposed R-1 zoning district.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single family
residential development at a density which is reasonable and
logical for the area.
4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for housing which
is affordable and which will provide for more of a variety of
housing types in the community.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Gniewek: I would just like to reiterate because we are rezoning this to R-1
and there has been some comments made regarding cluster housing or
condominiums, so to speak, it doesn't necessarily mean that is what
is going to go in there. We are talking about R-1 zoning period.
11602
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add to that. The Future Land Use designation for
this area is medium density residential, which I think is different
than what is perceived by at least one of the gentlemen.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-3-2-9
by George and Mary Marvaso requesting to utilize a Class C liquor
license in conjunction with a new billiard parlor proposed to be
established within the Northridge Commons Shopping Center located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating that after
reviewing the site plan, no comment is needed by this bureau. We
also have received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
they have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a
letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this
petition.
A letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division states their
department has no objections to the proposed use of this space as a
Billiard Parlor with a Class C license. However, the site itself
has several deficiencies which should be corrected. 1. The walls
of the new building on the east end of the property have been down
for several months. There are two violations currently
outstanding. 2. Several panels have been blown out of the ground
sign. 3. The transformer pad at the rear of this unit is sinking.
It must be back filled, the lot repaired and the protective post
replaced. 4. Last year we were assured that the berm in front of
the subway shop would be raised and more evergreens added to
protect the house across the street from headlight intrusion. This
has not been accomplished. 5. The location of flood lights for the
entrance markers would indicate plans for signs on the markers.
Such signs would require Zoning Board of Appeals and Control Zone
approval.
Also in our file is a letter from Mrs. Robert J. Comstock, Jr. ,
Resident Agent, Woodbrooke Homeowner's Association, stating at the
time this shopping center was first proposed, we expressed fears
regarding the affect it would have on quality in keeping with our
community and chosen homesites. As neighbors of the still
partially-unoccupied strip mall, we continue to be concerned.
In an attempt to apease our interest, Jay Ross, President of Ross
Financial Companies and owner of Northridge Commons Shopping
Center, arranged for Mr. Marvaso's attendance at our Association
Meeting last evening. However, Mr. Marvaso's presentation,
offering samples and swatches of glitzy furnishings, is hardly the
issue at this time.
11603
We are extremely anxious over the implications of this type of
business establishment and consider it to be a public nuisance
attraction. To name a few: 1. Mr. Marvaso indicated alcoholic
beverages would be served with minor age (17) patrons being allowed
admittance. 2. Gambling. Pool hall "hustling". 3. Eight Mile
Road already provides traffic problems. With this business in
operation until early morning hours, seven days a week, increased
and probable unsafe driving conditions would exist. 4. Parking lot
safety. Currently, this parking lot provides minimum threat and
requires minimum security. 5. Mr. Marvaso attests to experience in
both the meat and poster business; however, admittedly is
inexperienced in owning and managing a billiard/video game machines
operation.
We are in earnest hope that this section of Eight Mile Road, in its
acquisition of tenancy, will not be allowed to develop into a
decaying, drug-infested similar attraction as is recognized
eastward in the City of Detroit.
We understand that present Zoning of the property being considered
allows for the occupancy of this enterprise. However, we have been
led to believe Mr. Marvaso would find this undertaking financially
unfavorable if he were not able to serve alcoholic beverages on the
premises.
Based on this information, we trust our Livonia City Council will
give serious thought to these concerns and deny ANY alcoholic
beverage licenses and/or encouragement to the establishment of Mr.
Marvaso's billiard parlor.
We plan to have representation in attendance at the City Council
Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 30th, and if necessary
would welcome a chance to voice our concerns. Should you have any
questions or care to direct comment to me prior to the hearing, I
can be reached at 471-3178. Again, thank you for your sincere
attention to this matter.
We have also received a second letter from Livonia Woodbrooke
Homeowners Association stating they met with George Marvaso and at
the conclusion of his presentation they held an open vote to allow
Mr. Marvaso to see how they stood on this issue. the vote of
everyone present, including the Board of Directors, was unanimously
opposed to the billiard parlor. They further state because of
their many concerns they are strongly opposed to the establishment
of a billiard parlor in Northridge Commons and, in particular, to
the granting of a liquor license. Therefore, please consider our
concerns and our recommendation to disapprove the billiard parlor
during Mr. Marvaso's appearance at the Planning Commission hearing
scheduled for April 30, 1991.
We have also received several letters from people who have worked
with George Marvaso who are in favor of his petition and giving him
character references.
11604
Mr. Morrow: A question to the staff. This particular zoning in this shopping
center was that not a result of a court decision?
Mr. Nagy: There was a consent judgment entered into between the City of
Livonia and the property owners. It was a settlement that we made.
A stipulation to dismiss the law suit in consideration for the
zoning you see on the property today.
'ofte Mr. Morrow: There was litigation. I want to make a comment to the people in
Woodbrooke that the billiard parlor is a permitted use within the
C-2 zoning, that shopping center, so that is not really before us
tonight. What is before us tonight is the waiver of use for a
Class C liquor license.
Mr. Tent: A comment to Mr. Nagy. The letter that Mr. MacDonald issued about
the violations there. What is being done about that. That happens
so much in the City. J. Ross is the owner of the center. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: Are they addressing themselves to these concerns? That is a
relatively new shopping center. What is going to happen in the
future?
Mr. Nagy: The matter is properly before the Ordinance Enforcement Division of
the Inspection Department of the City of Livonia and they have
issued the notice of violation and it is their office that is
charged with enforcing the ordinances. The matter is between that
department and the landlord of the shopping center.
George Marvaso: The lady in the front is my wife Mary Marvaso. I would like to
fir.► thank the Commission and the people of Livonia for allowing me to
come tonight and put a petition forward for a Class C liquor
license in the way of a billiard parlor. There are three items
that I would like to get across to the people of Livonia. One is
the construction site. What it is going to look like and what kind
of place we are trying to do. Two, who we are. What kind of
family we are and what kind of values we carry, which I feel is
very important for you to know who we are so you can be comfortable
in my promises. The third being the trend of billiards compared to
today and the billiards in the past and what kind of direction they
have taken. The construction site is going to be self explanatory.
I brought in some pictures. I brought in some construction
materials. I think when we get done with that and I explain
everything, you will know what kind of site you will see and what
kind of effort we are trying to do to build a place with a nice
atmosphere and something the people of Livonia will be proud of.
Mr. Engebretson: We would appreciate it if you would focus in on the liquor
license.
Mr. Marvaso: The other two things are the most important as far as the liquor
license. Who we are. What kind of place are we going to run? Are
we going to allow children of Livonia to be involved? Are we going
11605
to run a firm place where we check ID's? Those are concerns the
people have. Those are serious concerns and I understand them.
Billiards in the past have had a stigma over their heads and
warrantably so. They were a place where they were smoke filled.
There was gambling going on and they were not the best places to
have. Since the movie "Color of Money" they are now becoming a
place where women are becoming involved. It is becoming a
*a. recreational place. Seniors are getting involved. They are
running very clean respectable places. I have brought in for
everyone's review articles published throughout the United States
that attest to that and just recently, April 22, Detroit Crain's
Business magazine there is an article that really explains the full
story. I brought in 12 to 14 copies of that for the people to
review. Some of the concerns the people have is not knowing the
business. I have brought in letters that Mr. Nagy had that I
didn't want read so it doesn't get too extensive but Mr. Franco of
Franco Food Equipment will attest that he has been teaching me the
business. He has a billiard parlor now and he has allowed me to
work there. Craig Hammond of Mr. Billiards in Allen Park, again,
has been teaching me for the last three months. Again, we have
worked inside the billiard hall. I am mentioning those because
they were some of the concerns of the people. Other than that, I
just don't feel I can teach people who I am and what our family
values are so I have brought in references with people I have
worked with for years. I was Assistant Plant Manager at Thorn
Apple Valley Smoked Meats. My wife is still working there as a
quality control person. I have brought in references from there.
I have brought in references from the church showing that we are
fully active in the church, not only attending but fund raisers,
etc. I mention these only so you can get comfortable with what we
are and if we were to obtain a liquor license, how we would handle
it. I don't know what else I can say. I do have pictures of the
construction material. I would like to show you what kind of place
we are going to build, $300,000 operation. We are hoping that we
will make you just as proud as we feel we are going to be once we
have it built.
Mr. Tent: Is this a franchise operation?
Mr. Marvaso: No. It will be an individual billiard parlor run by the family.
Mr. Tent: I asked that question because with a franchise operation they
provide you with all the management tips. They show you how to
prosper and what to do. What you are doing now, you are coming in
as a novice and you are picking up information from other billiard
parlor owners.
Mr. Marvaso: I am getting awful extensive on training myself and family. I have
a business plan I can present before you that shows you how
extensive a study we have done.
Mr. Tent: The liquor license you are asking for is that beer and wine or is
that going to be hard liquor as well as beer and wine?
Mr. Marvaso: I am applying for a Class C, which would be both.
11606
Mr. Tent: In other words, if it was just a beer license, you couldn't
operate.
Mr. Marvaso: We could operate.
Mr. Tent: If there was no liquor at all, would that make it operable as far
as you are concerned?
Nia` Mr. Marvaso: There are halls that are operable and they make it. With the
liquor license it does make it much easier.
Mr. Tent: As far as you are concerned you would prefer to go the other route.
It would be either go or don't go. Is that correct?
Mr. Marvaso: I would definitely like to go with it and control it and do it
right. It is a matter of a business standpoint. If you take the
finer places in a City that serve liquor, like a Sheraton or a
Mountain Jacks, they have no problems. You can go to some places
in the inner city, like a pub, and you are more likely to have
problems.
Mr. Tent: If you had no liquor license, would you continue with the
operation?
Mr. Marvaso: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: One of the questions I had was answered with Mr. Tent's question
because the people he talked with did indicate he could not make it
without the Class C liquor license and you are saying you can make
it.
Mr. Marvaso: I am saying you can. I may have said that in that town's meeting
,440. just to keep my record straight. There are plenty of halls
without them. They don't make it as well and the cost we are going
to put in there, it really makes more business sense to do it.
Mr. Morrow: I think it came out that 28 tables were involved. According to our
background notes you want seating for 91 people in the lounge area.
Is this correct?
Mr. Marvaso: That would be the entire layout.
Mr. Morrow: How did you arrive at the 91 to go with 28 tables? What is the
principal use of the facility? Is it a lounge with pool hall or a
pool hall with lounge?
Mr. Marvaso: It is a pool hall with lounge. The seating comes from two seats
per table. There are six tables with four chairs for the food
service area. We are also thinking about putting some more seating
in the waiting area.
Mr. Morrow: We seem to have a fairly large stacking area for people in there to
play pool.
11607
Mr. Marvaso: If the seating isn't right, we can make it right. Whatever you
feel is needed.
Mr. Morrow: I have no preconceived notions, I was just trying to get the
rationale of 28 tables as opposed to 91 seats for the various
tables around the hall.
`,r Mr. Vyhnalek: Concerning the establishments that Mr. Franco owns and your other
friend, are they in shopping centers?
Mr. Marvaso: No.
Mr. Vyhnalek: They are individual buildings?
Mr. Marvaso: That is right.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What about the ones back east, are they in shopping centers?
Mr. Marvaso: There are many in shopping centers. Even in Detroit in that
Crain's magazine, there is one that just opened on Woodward Avenue.
It is very upscale. It is called Breakers. It is in a shopping
mall. They are both ways.
Mr. LaPine: I am curious about you keep talking about food establishment. What
kind of food are you going to have? Is this going to be a
restaurant where you can get just hot dogs or pizza. What is your
foot item?
Mr. Marvaso: Mr. LaPine, the food is going to be a very limited menu. More of a
snack kind thing where you will see cheese snacks, hamburgers,
onion rings, etc. A very limited menu.
''or Mr. LaPine: We have three other billiard halls in Livonia. One has a beer and
wine license and the other two do not. They tried to get them but
were unsuccessful. The one on Schoolcraft and Inkster Road, I
notice they take the beer up to the billiard tables. Is this
commonly what is done or do you just have an area where the people
can drink the alcohol but can't take it into the pool hall area.
Mr. Marvaso: It is common to take it to the tables. The new rules they are
getting real strong on are no drinking or no smoking over the
tables but at each table there will be two seating chairs and also
a table to put food and drinks on.
Mr. LaPine: What about this room that is going to be a game room. How old do
you have to be to go in there?
Mr. Marvaso: The room right now is like the one you were talking about at
Schoolcraft and Inkster. What they have is under 17 must be
accompanied by an adult. We will work along with the people of
Livonia. I am willing to change it even if it hurts the business.
We might make it 21 years to come through the doors.
Mr. LaPine: What I am trying to find out, is the game room a necessity for a
billiard hall or is that an attraction to bring in a different type
of person to play those games and not play billiards?
11608
Mr. Marvaso: The machines are mainly there for, obviously there are going to be
some waiting lines, and that is the purpose for them. If it is run
right, there will be waiting lines and they are there to keep
people busy and to add revenue.
Mr. Morrow: You misunderstand where we are coming from because you are building
up the case of your integrity and what you stand for. One of our
`ear considerations is these waivers run with the land and should you
decide to sell, we have to contend with whatever comes after you.
That is one of our concerns.
Mr. Marvaso showed his plans and materials to the Commissioners and the audience.
Mr. Marvaso: In conclusion I want you to know we are going to try to build a
place you can be proud of and my word is important to me.
Mr. Tent: The leasehold improvements. Can you give me a ballpark figure?
How much is this costing you?
Mr. Marvaso: $300,000. Mr. Franco has offered three times to become half owner
and he knows the business.
Mr. LaPine: How did you arrive at this location? What makes you believe that
this location will be a viable location? Aco Hardware got out of
there. There is a possiblity that Krogers is going to close down.
They are not doing well. The other buildings over there have never
been completed. What makes you think this location is going to be
a viable location since stores that are there now are having a
rough time making it?
Mr. Marvaso: After doing my market research, I find that people like shooting
billiards and they are shooting them all across the United States.
` ► Kroger and Aco, I would think they have other problems with
competition. I would like to be in a place where there is more
traffic. It is hard to find 8,000 square feet and get everything
you want.
Mr. LaPine: What range of area do you feel you are going to be drawing from?
Mr. Marvaso: I would say ten miles. Actually, if I answer truthfully, this type
of item people will come to. I am hoping to get from the north,
Farmington, West Bloomfield, etc.
Ed Gallagher, 20212 Whitby Drive: I have been a police officer for 17 years. I
have been in law enforcement longer than that including my military
time. I am also father of a five year old. My main concern for
this kind of establishment is based on two things. One, the City
of Livonia presently has an exceptional D.A.R.E program working in
the school system. For you to allow a liquor license in this kind
of an establishment, in my estimation, would show a double meaning
to the students. We are telling them in the school that drugs,
whether legal or illegal, are wrong, liquor, cigarettes, marijuana,
but by placing this kind of an establishment within a residential
area within close proximity of a number of bus stops, I believe you
11609
are showing them a double message here. You are saying we don't
want you to do it but here is a place to go just in case you do
want to do it. Secondly, as a police officer, I have been at the
scene of numerous accidents in my 17 years where alcohol was
directly involved. My wife's niece was killed just outside of
Lansing a little over a year and a half ago by a drunken driver. I
don't want my son, or anyone else in my residential area, injured
`. by someone who has been drinking whether it is in this
establishment or any other one. You can check with both the City
and the Farmington police departments. I think you will find the
corner at Eight Mile and Farmington Roads has a large number of
accidents. I would say at least one or two a week. Gill Road is
an extremely busy intersection. It was just expanded to handle the
extra traffic from the apartment complex that was put in there. If
you add drunk drivers to those two locations, you will add an
extreme amount of danger to the people who live in that area. I
don't think it is necessary.
John Nowacki, 34180 Pembroke Dr. in Woodbrooke Sub. : I am President of the
homeowner's association. I would like to indicate that when we
originally talked to Ross Development when this project was
started, he indicated to our association that there would be
nothing but high quality tenants in that complex. That was going
to be his goal. Obviously, he is not fulfilling that desire on his
part to our association or to the tenants in that complex. I have
spoken to a number of the tenants in that complex and I don't want
to name them unless they are here tonight and they can indicate
that, but they have also indicated that they would be opposed to
this establishment and also to the liquor license. They have young
clientele that utilize their facilities and that is a concern to
them. A concern also to the homeowners is the immediate adjacency
to Blockbuster Videos. I am sure a number of our homeowners,
`r.. whether adults or children, utilize that facility to rent videos.
With the billiard hall being right next door, that poses a chance
they could also utilize that facility or encounter patrons from
that facility upon entering or exiting Blockbuster. We generally
just have a concern about the clientele and we would hope that you
could enter that into your consideration toward the liquor license.
Ginny Krenz, 34075 Pembroke: When Mr. Marvaso came and spoke at our homeowners
association meeting, he mentioned to us, and he was very positive
about it, that if he did not have a liquor license, he would not
survive. I think tonight he is just showing you his reliability or
lack of it because already he has flip-flopped saying yes I can
make it without it. He also told us the price range of $300,000 to
$400,000. We asked him where he was going to get the money from.
He said Mr. Franco was going to put up half and he was rather vague
about where the other half was coming from. The way the economy is
today and loans from the bank, we do kind of question where this
money might come from. You mentioned Aco and I think one of the
reasons they went out of business, they had limited stock and
whenever you went in there if you asked one of the help, you could
just forget about it. Members of our homeowners association, they
11610
went in there once, they went in there twice and they never went
back again. One of the members of our homeowners association,
Chris Hogan, is a state policeman, and at our homeowners
association meeting he brought up his experience with pool halls
and he feels that gambling and pool hustling goes hand in hand.
Mr. Marvaso said he didn't think that could happen in his place.
It was something Mr. Hogan felt was really hard to control. He
just thought that would be a bad thing and we would not want that
in our area. Mr. Marvaso also mentioned that he wanted to get the
children in the community involved. We do not want our children
involved. We pay real high taxes in Woodbrooke and we feel we
should have some kind of influence with the Planning Commission and
the City Council and if we had been asked if we even wanted that
pool hall in there, you would have gotten the same response that
you are getting about the liquor license. We don't want any of it
there. If you want to put something there that is going to thrive,
we need an Arbor Drugs or something like that and that would help
the other tenants in the area to bring in good business.
Larry Schroer, 20152 Ellen Drive: I am President of Deer Creek Homeowners
Association. We would like to give our support to Windridge and
Woodbrooke and the other people who live in that neighborhood. We
would not like to see this establishment. I think if the other
neighborhoods around there, Pine Creek and Bicentennial Estates, if
they knew this was going, the auditorium would be overflowing
tonight. I don't have a lot of other things to add except I don't
think this is the type of establishment that will serve the local
community. Strip malls are put there to serve the local community.
Bob Ray, Napier Road, South Lyons: I would like to say that this guy here is
trying to put a good establishment up and do a good job. Nobody
wants to give him the opportunity to do so. Do you have liquor
''rw licenses in golf courses? Do you see a bunch of drunks going
around golf courses. No because it is well taken care of. This
man doesn't plan on having drunks roaming around. He is going to
utilize a liquor license the way it is suppose to be. He has a
right just like everyone else has the right.
Mr. Marvaso: A few things that the last lady said. I don't want to get in any
arguments with anybody. I am sincere when I want to join in with
the community. I didn't say I want to get children involved. I
want to watch out for your children. There are quite a few things
that she didn't repeat as I said it. They are not important, but
they were not the same. The important thing and one last thing I
would like to say, things do change. Things that are normal one
day aren't always normal the next day. At one time women couldn't
vote. There are quite a few things that change. Go back 25 years,
if you picked up something that said "Made in Japan" on it, you
knew it was a piece of junk. You don't think that any more.
Things do change. They are changing and they are changing in the
right direction. I understand their fears when it has been
impounded into their heads for 25 years. That is the way it was.
This place will not be like that. The reason I got back up here,
when somebody disputes my word, I am not crazy about that.
11611
Mr. Morrow: One of the things about a waiver use is to generally intensify a
use over and above the permitted use and I think Officer Gallagher
made a very important point that one of the reasons that shopping
center is not as successful is the traffic pattern around there,
which is a very valid consideration for a waiver of use. With the
four lanes and the de-acceleration lane, to try to go to the west
in its current form is tantamount to almost impossible at certain
`,.,, times of the day. So in addition to the normal use when you
intensify that, at least under the current conditions, it could be
a very large traffic problem.
Bob Baumane, 7374 Woodrich, West Bloomfield: About 22 years ago I was the editor
of the Livonia Observer. I am a college graduate. I served in the
airforce. I also won the 1971 United States Open Three Cushion
Championship and the Michigan State Championship. If you think I
am a bum, there are a lot of bums. I have been around billiard
rooms of every description. The billiard rooms, as this gentleman
here said, have changed a lot in the last few years. They are
carpeted. They are clean. The restrooms are clean. Important
clientele go in there. If you go in the Cushion & Cue, you will
find anybody from a bum to a multi-millionaire. A lot of well
respected businessmen go in there, lawyers, doctors, etc. These
people have a preconceived opinion of billiard rooms that they have
gotten from reading old newspaper clippings and magazine articles.
It is not all true. Things have changed.
Mrs. Fandrei: I have read the article in Crain's weekly. I have no problem with
billiard parlors. This would be the fourth billiard parlor in
Livonia. There is one three miles to the east on Eight Mile Road,
just west of Inkster. You are claiming to draw from an eight to
ten mile radius. You do have competition. I was not supportive of
a former petition for a liquor license in the billiard hall on Joy
Now Road. I am not supportive of a liquor license in this billiard
parlor for the same reasons Mr. Gallagher has mentioned. I do not
feel a liquor license is necessary or should be in a business
establishment where we have underage young people who cannot
possibly be totally watched. Because of these reasons that I have
just expressed, I am not supportive of the liquor license.
Mr. McCann: I am going to make a denying motion for several of my own reasons.
I don't believe the alcohol is appropriate in a mall for much of
the reasons people have stated. However, I disagree with some of
the statements that were made regarding Mr. Marvaso. I believe him
to be a businessman who has been straightforward. I have been
watching a lot of people come in here over the last four years. I
think he has been open. I think he has been forthright. I do
believe he is trying to do something proper here. However, I don't
believe the alcohol is something that belongs in there. It is
something that can't be controlled once he leaves the area. I
agree this particular mall is mostly for a residential type
subdivision and I don't believe it is proper in there so I am
recommending a denying resolution.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I agree with Mr. McCann but I am a pool player from way back and I
have a pool table down in my basement and I think pool is a good
11612
family recreation but I don't believe this is the right spot in
Livonia. I don't believe alcohol should be involved in this
shopping center so close to this subdivision. I feel this shopping
center needs something to bring it back to life. I don't think a
pool hall is it. With Aco going out and Kroger in trouble, I think
we should get some viable businesses in there so that it can be a
productive shopping center. It is more than a strip center. I
No.. think you picked the wrong spot. I wish you would look around for
some other spot.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-3-2-9 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-74-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Petition 91-3-2-9 by George and Mary Marvaso requesting to
utilize a Class C liquor license in conjunction with a new billiard
parlor proposed to be established within the Northridge Commons Shopping
Center located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington
and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
91-3-2-9 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the
adjacent and surrounding uses in the area.
3) That traffic to and from the site will be such that it will
interfere with normal traffic in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-3-2-10 by Kok Va Chhan requesting waiver use approval to operate a
donut shop with customer seating in an existing building located on the
southwest corner of Six Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 14.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a
letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objections to this proposal. We also have in our file a letter
from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this
petition.
11613
We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the
following is submitted for your consideration: (1) "Right turn
only" signs should be placed at both east and south driveways.
This is due to the driveways proximity to the intersection.
(2) a. Only one handicapped parking space is shown. b. Only one
employee parking space is shown and section 18.38(17)(e) states one
space for each employee. (3) Elevation of planters may have to be
,,111. cut down to a maximum of 32" for clear view. (4) No dumpster is
shown. (5) Parking space next to the north/west drive should be
eliminated to afford free passage of vehicles.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. The entire parking lot needs to be resurfaced and restriped.
2. All landscape areas require an extensive upgrade. 3. The
planter box is broken at the southeast corner of the building.
4. A detailed sign package should be submitted for review. The
remnants of the old ground sign must be removed. 5. There is an
unused light stanchion on the east side near the sidewalk which
should be removed or restored to use. 6. It should be noted that
the parking on this site also supports the property to the west
(Shooters Service and one apartment). These properties have been
under common ownership so there has never been a need for a
recordable document authorizing or allotting the parking. The
previous use of the subject property (Flowers N Cones) plus
Shooters Service to the west and the apartment above, required
eighteen (18) parking spaces, all of which were provided on the
Flowers N Cones property. The conversion of the subject property
to a donut shop with seating will create the need for six (6)
additional parking spaces. The combined property would then be
deficient by that number of parking spaces and should be appealed
to the Zoning Board. 7. If for any reason the subject property is
sold off or if the parking on this property is held for the
exclusive use of the donut shop, then the property to the west
(Shooters Service and the apartment above) would become untenable
as they have zero on-site parking spaces.
Lynn Morgan, Thompson-Brown Realtors, 32646 Five Mile Road, Livonia: I am
representing Kok Va Chhan, the tenant, proposing to use the site
and I am also representing Win Investment, the owner/landlord of
the property. I don't have much to address except to say we would
like to have the petition approved for the waiver of use as an
improvement to the neighborhood and an improvement to the property.
We think it is a viable business for that particular location. A
transient kind of business so we will have traffic throughout most
of the day served by that particular location. I think that is all
I really care to say. Any questions?
Mr. LaPine: As you heard from Mr. Nagy reading some of the problems, you don't
have adequate parking.
Mr. Morgan: We are aware of the parking situation. I guess in that particular
question I would address the fact the property has been used for
similar purposes, not exactly the same, but similar purposes for
11614
approximately 15 years and again, because of transient business, it
has not become a problem where there was an over concentration of
vehicles at any one point in time.
Mr. LaPine: Before it was a flower shop and an ice cream shop. People ran in
and got some ice cream and flowers and left. Most people I have
seen in a donut shop, they go in there in the morning and have
donuts and coffee and usually they read the newspaper, which leads
me to believe there are going to be people in there for 15 to 20
minutes. With that small amount of parking, what is going to
happen when the parking lot is full? There is just not enough
parking. I went out there on a site inspection of the property and
the property is in terrible shape. The building, as far as I could
see, should be renovated from top to bottom. The parking lot
should be all replaced. How about the owner next door. How does
he feel about losing some of his parking? It is really common
parking.
Mr. Morgan: If you have reviewed the ownership of the property, the building to
the west is also owned by Win Investment.
Mr. LaPine: They use common parking but actually he doesn't have any parking.
Mr. Morgan: As I said before, the similar use over approximately 15 years has
not caused a particular parking problem for numbers of vehicles
because it tends to be transient as well for the gun shop, which is
next door.
Mr. LaPine: What I am trying to explain to you is it is not the same kind of
transient use. Now you are going to have people sitting there for
15 to 20 minutes. How can you say it is the same?
Mr. Morgan: I am not saying it is the same but I am saying because of the
amount of traffic through the area for both the gun shop and the
timing of the business of the donut shop, being busiest early in
the morning, and the gun shop opening approximately mid-morning,
the concentration of the traffic and the parking requirements
change during the day.
Mr. LaPine: The donut shop is going to be open only in the morning?
Mr. Morgan: No. The donut shop will be open all day long.
Mr. LaPine: How long is that?
Mr. Morgan: I am not exactly sure of the closing time but roughly in the
neighborhood of 9:00 or 10:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine: It does not meet the ordinance.
Mr. Morgan: I understand it does not meet the ordinance. I believe that is
generally the reason for asking for a waiver of use, parking
included in that. Let me address one other topic. We are
understanding of the fact the parking is short. We are trying to
11615
do something to resolve that with the neighboring property owner in
what would normally be an alley way situation, or at least a
driveway right-of-way, accessing to Middlebelt Road. We have
contacted, by letter, the owner of that particular piece of
property sitting behind the gun shop building with the idea that we
would get from them a written approval, agreeable and recordable in
some fashion, so that we could add the additional five parking
`.. spaces in that location and they would give us an exclusive right
to use that parking. We are trying to do something to compensate
for the lack of parking; however, the timing has not allowed me to
get an answer back from the out-of-state owner of that property.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, how much seating did the flower shop need or have?
Mr. Nagy: The flower shop had casual seating for the ice cream cones.
Mrs. Fandrei: About how many?
Mr. Nagy: About 12.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Morgan, you are requesting 21 seats. That is almost double
what the previous owner had. That makes a big difference. As Mr.
LaPine indicated, the seating is for long periods of time. We have
more of a problem than we did have previously. I think what we all
need to hear is what that letter is going to say and we cannot move
forward until you receive that letter.
Mr. Morgan: All I can tell you is what I requested and that was an exclusive
right to use that particular space, which would be a common
property line extension from the west side of the gun shop building
and I believe the site plan would indicate that would be 50 to 55
feet further to the west allowing for approximately an additional
'New five parking spaces.
Mrs. Fandrei: A waiver use goes with the land. If we give this without having
the letter on file, then we have a problem with a possible future
owner. At this point we really can't move on this until we have
your letter. I would suggest at this point we table this until you
receive that letter.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think we should go to the audience and see if anyone is here and
if they are not, I think we should make a tabling resolution so we
can discuss this at the study meeting.
Dave Southerland, 25526 Alba, Redford: If you look at the plans you will notice
there are 18 or 19 parking places. They require one parking place
per two seats. We had five extra parking spaces according to the
plans, which we are sharing with the people next door. Also, we
are trying to get those five extra spaces. That would give
Shooters approximately ten parking places over and above what we
need. We can reduce our seating in the donut shop as far as that
goes but it is really not required because you ask for one parking
place for two seats and that is what we drew the plans up for.
Mr. Engebretson: The problem is we have two businesses using the same parking.
11616
Mr. Southerland: I have sat there for quite a lot of times and the most the
Shooters have stop by is about four cars at a time because it is a
sales place where they sell guns. In the early morning from 6:00
to 9:00 a.m. is our busiest time. They come down Six Mile and
Middlebelt. A lot of our business is carry out. Sure there will
be some that come in. That is mostly in residential neighborhoods
they stop by and have coffee and read the paper but it really
r.. doesn't happen too often. We would like to get started on this
building and we would appreciate any help that we can get without
putting it off to a later date.
Mr. Engebretson: The problem is, as Mrs. Fandrei said, we only have two choices
tonight because it doesn't meet the ordinance. If we had to act on
it, we would have to deny it. I think if we were to table it, as
has been suggested, to allow you more time to work that parking
situation out with the property owners, that is as expeditiously as
we can deal with it.
Mr. Gniewek: I would like to go one step further as far as the shortage of
parking spaces is concerned. You don't have any type of agreement
at this time and it does look like there still will be a shortage
of parking spaces at that time. If they do not reduce the number
of seats, then I would ask that the tabling resolution be based
upon them going before the Zoning Board of Appeals to seek a
variance on the off-street parking requirements and then come back
to us with that in hand and then we could act on it.
Mr. Engebretson: That is the other solution.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-3-2-10 closed.
New On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-75-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Petition 91-3-2-10 by Kok Va Chhan requesting waiver use
approval to operate a donut shop with customer seating in an existing
building located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and Middlebelt
Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 91-3-2-10 to give the petitioner
time to petition the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance to the
off-street parking regulations.
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.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-3-2-11 by Transmission Retailers Inc. requesting waiver use approval
to expand an existing transmission rebuilding and repair facility
11617
located within the Jeffries Commerce Center on the south side of
Schoolcraft Road, west of Inkster Road in the Northeast 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 this proposal. We have also received a
letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objections to this proposal. A letter from the Traffic Bureau
states they find nothing from the site plan that would require
attention by their department. Also in our file is a letter from
Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this petition.
Lastly, a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division states no
deficiencies or problems were found and therefore their office has
no objections to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Wayne Jenkins, President of Transmission Retailers, 27577 Schoolcraft: I just want
to rent the building next door to extend my business.
Mr. Morrow: Would you share with us what your business is?
Mr. Jenkins: Rebuilding transmissions.
Mr. Morrow: Is that work done while the customer waits?
Mr. Jenkins: Eighty percent of my business is from other business places. They
bring the transmissions to me and I do them.
ti.. Mr. Morrow: You repair them and then ship them back.
Mr. Jenkins: Some vehicles have to be brought back for us to make minor
adjustments.
Mrs Fandrei: Mr. Jenkins, if I read our notes correctly, you are not allowed to
have any overnight parking?
Mr. Jenkins: No.
Mrs. Fandrei: So most of the time you don't have vehicles in, you just have the
transmissions
Mr. Jenkins: Right.
Mrs. Fandrei: How many employees do you have?
Mr. Jenkins: Three.
Mrs. Fandrei: There were eight cars there late this afternoon. None of those
were going to be there overnight?
Mr. Jenkins: There are none of those vehicles that belong to me outside right
now.
11618
Mrs. Fandrei: So out of the eight vehicles that I saw between four and five
o'clock, where were they all going to be if you only have three
employees?
Mr. Jenkins: Four of the vehicles belong to me personally and they are inside
the building right now.
Now Mr. Vyhnalek: You were before us a few years back for a lift. Are you going to
put a lift on this site also?
Mr. Jenkins: Yes sir. I would like to be able to handle trucks, like pickups
and vans. Just normal size pickups and vans.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This 20%, what does that mean per vehicle per week.
Mr. Jenkins: Maybe five or six a week.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You do work for dealerships?
Mr. Jenkins: Yes for dealerships, City of Livonia, etc.
Mr. Tent: The waiver use runs with the property. So far you can use one
hoist. Now you will have two hoist on the property. The other
hoist that you talking about would be for heavy duty trucks?
Mr. Jenkins: They are not really heavy duty. It is just my first hoist is
strictly for cars. The second hoist will be able to lift vans and
pickups.
Mr. Tent: If you were granted this waiver use, would you be willing to go
along with just one hoist?
un. Mr. Jenkins: That is the problem. I actually need two hoist. The first hoist I
got was designed to handle light cars and front wheel drives. The
second hoist you cannot do a front wheel drive on.
Mr. Tent: What type of hoist would that be? A big heavy duty type of hoist.
Mr. Jenkins: Just a drive on hoist. It would be capable of holding eight tons.
Mr. Tent: That would be a post type hoist?
Mr. Jenkins: It would be a hoist that is electrically operated by hydraulics.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask what you do with the fluids that you dispose
of?
Mr. Jenkins: They are picked up by a responsible company.
Mr. Engebretson: Stored on site for what period of time and how many containers?
Mr. Jenkins: They are all inside and I have what you call four 55 gallon drums.
When three of them are full, I call the company to come out.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-3-2-11 closed.
11619
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-76-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Petition 91-3-2-11 by Transmission Retailers Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to expand an existing transmission rebuilding and
repair facility located within the Jeffries Commerce Center on the south
Now side of Schoolcraft Road, west of Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 91-3-2-11 be approved subject to the
condition that no overnight parking of customer vehicles shall be
allowed unless parked inside of the building, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements set forth in Sections 16.11,
17.02(a) and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
9:30 p.m. - Mr. Engebretson passed the gavel to Mr. Kluver.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-4-2-12 by Szechuan Empire Ltd. requesting waiver use approval to
utilize a Class C liquor license in connection with an existing
restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Middlebelt and Cavour Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have
no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from
Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this petition.
A letter from the Traffic Bureau states (1) The floor plan shows 16
- 4 person tables. City Zoning Ordinance #18.37 17 (e) establishes
1 space for each employee and 1 space for every 2 seats. (2) The
above works out to be 32 spaces. The parking lot will only hold 15
vehicles plus 3 for employees. (3) The lot is not large enough to
hold the traffic the restaurant has at the present time. Adding a
Class C license would increase the patronage, thus compounding the
parking problem. (4) No dumpster is shown on this plan.
11620
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. The restaurant is approximately 750' from an existing Class C
Liquor licensed establishment (Stables Bar, 14950 Middlebelt). A
waiver of the 1000' distance requirement must be obtained from the
City Council. 2. Deficient Parking: 37-39 spaces are required -
Nr.r 18 spaces are proposed - deficient 19-21 spaces. The parking
deficiency will require a waiver from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
3. The current tenant has agreed to remove the non-conforming pole
sign in its entirety.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, you indicated there was a liquor license within 1,000
feet from that establishment. In that general area, the four mile
square area, approximately how many Class C liquor licenses do we
have?
Mr. Nagy: Within a one mile radius of the area there are 11.
Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner present?
James Bilicki: I am an attorney appearing on behalf of the Szechuan Empire Ltd. I
would indicate initially that with regard to the liquor license,
there was an existing license next door immediatedly to the east.
It was a package liquor establishment. What we are looking for is
essentially a Class C license to go along with the restaurant
itself. I don't know if any of you are familiar with Szechuan type
chinese food. It is a little different. It has varying degrees of
spiciness. Our particular establishment has been opened up since
January of this year. Seated here is the President of the Szechuan
Empire, Mr. Lin I. Sheng, who has had much experience with Szechuan
food. He operated a restaurant in Canton. I think the actual
,,`, establishment, they have done an extremely good job. They have put
substantial amounts of improvements internally and improved the
restaurant which previously had been operating as the Kozy Korner.
They have put substantial time and money into building it up. It
is extremely good food. I think that the restaurant itself is an
asset to the community. We are seeking the liquor license through
the corporation, which Mr. Sheng is President of. Also his father
is here, who is another owner of the corporation. He has had a
liquor license within the City of Livonia and has operated Julio's
Restaurant. I understand the concern with regards to the parking
and I understand we may have to request a variance with regard to
the parking facilities prior to the approval of this petition. If
that is in fact the case, our intent is to correct any deficiency
in regard to parking. There have not been a lot of problems so
far. Obviously with the liquor license, the intent is we will be
able to serve the community a little bit better. There have been
numerous requests from patrons of the restaurant, at this point, to
be served alcoholic beverages. I would indicate the restaurant is
not one that is open late on weekends. They normally close at
10:30 p.m. on the weekends. All liquor in the establishment would
be served only at the tables. There is no additional bar area.
There is no intention of serving individuals for liquor only. I do
11621
think that a liquor license, other than the particular parking
problem, would be appropriate with this particular situation. I
understand the Stables Bar is down the road on Middlebelt. That is
an entirely different type of establishment. This is operated
essentially only as a Chinese restaurant. Any serving of alcoholic
beverages is secondary to the main attraction, which is the food.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Bilicki, your presentation was great. I have no problem with
the restaurant. I have no problem with the food. Tell me exactly
how are you going to park all those cars. Forget about the
variance. Even if you got it, where would you put them. I am
familiar with that corner. I am familiar with the other
restaurant. Even when it was a regular restaurant, you couldn't
find parking. Now with a liquor license and the expansion of the
business as you proposed, I can't see where you can park those
cars. What is your magic formula?
Mr. Bilicki: That is something we are going to have to work out. We are going
to have to request a separate variance.
Mr. Tent: Even a variance, just being realistic about it, there is no place
to put those cars. That is my concern and I am asking you as the
representative, if you have any ideas.
Mr. Bilicki: At this point we haven't had a significant problem. I understand
the general requirements of one parking space for two seating
spaces. Our seating pattern is designed so for each car that comes
into the establishment, they take a table or a booth. It is a very
small restaurant and one of the reasons I don't anticipate the
problem in quite the magniture you anticipate it, is because of the
seating pattern. There are no tables or booths designed where you
can have two individuals. They are all designed for four.
Noy
Mr. LaPine: Is this a new liquor license or one you are moving from another
location?
Mr. Bilicki: One we are moving from another location here in Livonia. I don't
anticipate there being problems with the Liquor Control Commission.
They have gone through the detail with the Livonia Police
Department and there is no anticipated problems there.
Mr. LaPine: When your clients decided to move into this location, at the time
they moved there were they anticpating they wanted a liquor license?
Mr. Bilicki: Yes. However, the restaurant has been operating at this point
without a liquor license.
Mr. LaPine: Did you know at the time you moved there, if you went for a liquor
license, you would have a problem? Wouldn't it have been more
logical to find out if you could get a liquor license first? Ever
since you were there you had an awning that said "cocktails" on it.
I have to assume that from the time you were there you were going
to go for a liquor license. It seems to me you should have found
out if it was logical to have a license if you could get one and
secondly, if you did get one, if you were going to have enough
parking. Because now if you don't get a liquor license, you are in
the building and you are stuck.
11622
Mr. Bilicki: That is correct and I believe Mr. Sheng, when he originally went
into this, may not have anticipated all those problems. I did not
become involved with the initial moving into the restaurant. I am
not sure, at this point, that he really anticipated that parking
situation when he moved into the restaurant.
Mr. LaPine: When I inspected the location, behind the building where your
New dumpster is, there were three cars parked behind there and really
that is not a realistic parking space because you have a dumpster
back there and when the trucks come in to pick up the dumpster,
that is really three spaces that are not really useful. You really
have a problem there with parking with or without a liquor license.
Mr. Bilicki: Because of the internal arrangement of the restaurant and generally
speaking because there are no large tables where you would have
multiple seating, you would have no problems.
Mr. LaPine: Next door to you where the party store used to be, who owns that
building? Where would the people park if that was ever rented.
Mr. Bilicki: There is street parking along the side but I don't know if there is
any other parking available for that particular store. I don't
think the way that area is designed that they would pull into the
parking lot designated for the restaurant.
Mr. LaPine: This building is not owned by the same people that own the
restaurant?
Mr. Bilicki: I am not aware who the owner is.
Mr. Vyhnalek: On the same line about this other building. Realistically they
have no parking at all and I think the best thing would be if that
,` building was torn down and that is where the parking should be.
In our notes it states there is no landscaping at all. We require
15% and I would like to have seen some type of landscaping on this
someplace. I have been on this Commission for 11 years and we have
never passed something that had no landscaping. I don't know if
this is going to be tabled but I think some landscaping should be
involved.
Mr. Morrow: Just a point that we don't want to overlook, the ordinance states
that we must have 1,000 feet separating another establishment that
has a Class C license. You indicated that athough the Stables did
serve liquor, it was a different operation but the ordinance does
not recognize that. So we have three things to overcome. You have
a very serious deficiency in landscaping and parking and now, at
least as one Commissioner, I couldn't vote for this if we overcame
the other two because I can't vote against the ordinance that we
enforce. That would have to be waived by another party.
Mrs. Fandrei: One of the things we have addressed previously is the waiver use
goes with the land. This would also go with the land and with the
limited parking. Mr. Bilicki, the attorney, has several times
indicated that there aren't a lot of problems at this time. That
is indicating to me there are some problems with the parking. The
11623
use of a Class C liquor license would enhance that problem and we
have many problems not considering the property next door that has
been referred to that doesn't have any parking except for a few
spots down the street. I don't feel that 11 present liquor
licenses within one mile, I don't see the need for another besides
parking and the other things that have been mentioned, so I cannot
support this petition with these deficiencies.
Sow
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-4-2-12 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-77-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Petition 91-4-2-12 by Szechuan Empire Ltd. requesting waiver
use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in connection with an
existing restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Middlebelt and Cavour Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 91-4-2-12 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 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 18.38(17) with
respect to required off-street parking and Section 11.03(h) which
requires a 1000' separation between existing and proposed Class C
licensed facilities.
``. 3) That the subject location lacks the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
4) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
9:56 - The gavel was returned to Mr. Engebretson.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-4-2-13 by Citation Const. Co. requesting waiver use approval to
remodel and increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant
located on the north side of Grand River between Inkster and Eight Mile
Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
11624
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this petition. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have
rio objections to this proposal. The Traffic Bureau writes that the
Police Department finds nothing inconsistent with its public safety
mission. We have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
`r.. 1. Deficient parking. 2. The entire parking lot must be repaired
and restriped. 3. The pole sign overhanging the right of way must
be removed in its entirety. 4. The proposed ground sign is at a
deficient setback and will require Zoning Board approval. They
further state in their estimation, the existing site could not
support the proposed addition and is currently developed to the
maximum extent. Lastly, we have received a letter from Detroit
Edison stating they have no objections to this petition.
Dan Graustein, G & G Engineering, 22245 Tireman, Detroit: I am representing
Citation Construction and Al George's Coney Island. I prepared the
preliminary floor plan, site plan and elevations for this building.
We had submitted it to the Planning Commission prior to starting
any drawings on this. I researched the project. I was in contact
with Mr. Nagy and Mr. Clark. I brought in photograhs and reviewed
projects of a similar nature in Detroit and I also reviewed the
minutes of the Planning Commission a year ago at this time for the
same site where it was recommended that the site be approved for
the addition without a drive thru and the drive thru has been
eliminated from the plans. The expansion of the building to the
north is to provide barrier free restrooms. One for men and one
for women. The expansion of the building to the west is for
refrigeration units and preparation area. The number of tables and
the number of seats will be dictated by the parking. The
landscaping also is deficient on the site plan but if we are
Nom. eliminating the one parking space to the north, that would provide
the 90 square feet that we were deficient. Other than that I have
nothing to add.
Eugene Keller, 27450 Grand River: That is Frankie's Pizza. I own the building.
We don't think that they will have enough room for parking for one
thing and they will cover up our building from Grand River
travelling west. There is a space between their building and our
building of about 50 feet. You can see our building from Grand
River going west, which makes it good because they know our
building is there and they will stop. We have sufficient parking.
When the little hamburger place was there, they used to park in our
lot. We have a barrier across from their building to our building.
If he only has 900 square feet, that is not enough to accommodate
any cars at all. What happened when the hamburger place was there,
they parked in our lot and we had an accident. They climbed over
the barrier and fell over and hurt themselves. We never found out
whatever happened to them. The EMS picked them up and took them to
the hospital. I never found out who was at fault. He was in our
parking lot going to their hamburger place.
Mr. Engebretson: So you oppose it?
Mr. Keller: Oh yes, we oppose it.
11625
Mrs. Keller: That lot that they have now sort of accomodated the people they had
before. If he is going to expand at all, I don't know where he is
going to park because they are not going to park in our spots
again. The hamburger place spilled oil there and this fellow went
over the barrier and he fell and I guess he got blamed for it
because they found out he was spilling the oil there. If he didn't
have enough room then, how are they going to have enough parking
`ft. now?
Mr. Engebretson: On that point, Mr. Nagy, if I understand correctly, based on the
reduced seating capacity, that they do meet the ordinance with
respect to the number of parking spaces.
Mr. Nagy: That is true. They would meet the minimum requirements.
Mr. Keller: If he does add on to that and they do park in our lot and somebody
gets hurt, who will be to blame?
Mr. Morrow: It is not that we don't respect your concern, this body just can't
answer your question. I am sure you can get that advice from
someone.
Mrs. Keller: But there is not enough room now and if he is going to expand, if
he didn't have enough room for the cars before, how is he going to
have enough room for more cars?
Mr. Engebretson: The only thing we can say is the ordinance guides these kinds of
decisions and based upon the reduced seating they have, albeit they
are going to expand the facility, they are going to have reduced
seating and they meet the ordinance.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
`r. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-4-2-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved,
it was
#4-78-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Petition 91-4-2-13 by Citation Const. Co. requesting waiver
use approval to remodel and increase the seating capacity of an existing
restaurant located on the north side of Grand River between Inkster and
Eight Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 91-4-2-13 so as to
allow the petitioner time to seek the necessary variances from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
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.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Camborne Pines Subdivision proposed to be located south of
Six Mile Road between Harrison and Savoie Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 13.
11626
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 Traffic Bureau stating they
recommend that street names be such as to be consistent with street
names in that area to aid emergency service personnel and
deliveries. We have also received a letter from the Engineering
'401m. Department stating there appear to be no engineering problems
connected with the proposed plat. Also in our file is a letter
from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to
this development contingent upon adequate water supply into the
subdivision. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Parks and
Recreation Department stating they see no problems or discrepancies
with the plan as submitted.
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: As the map indicates, I propose a seven lot
subdivision. If you will notice on the one that shows an existing
home, that home will remain. It is a very beautiful home built in
1917. It will remain. All the lots are a minimum of 100 foot at
the building line. They are equal to or in excess of 1/2 acre.
The road right-of-way is 60 feet. In view of the fact that we are
contiguous to another privately owned parcel to the east, I will
indicate in engineering and I believe your drawing indicates that I
have offset the paving approximately ten feet from the center line
to the 60 foot right-of-way to allow a berm in certain areas where
we do not have to remove some of the beautiful trees that are on
the property line. Most of the existing trees in the area, I will
buffer with shrubs, landscaping, etc. I am enthused over this
small subdivision similar to the one I had known as the Ravines at
Hubbard Road between Five and Six Mile. It comes as a somewhat
isolated area and as the names implies, Camborne Pines, there is
some beautiful pines and certainly most of these will be preserved.
In fact my third son will be building on one of these lots. I hope
you will approve this.
Mr. LaPine: That 60 foot road, how close is that road to that residence?
Mr. Roskelly: The distance from the property line to the home is in excess of 35
feet.
Mr. LaPine: See that lot 29a2. Does that belong to the property owner of Lot
29al?
Mr. Roskelly: I believe that one belongs to the frontage on Harrison. I am not
sure. It appears to me it is a split off that parcel and it now
belongs to the parcel that fronts on Harrison.
Mr. LaPine: How wide is that lot next to you, 29al?
Mr. Roskelly: I think it is approximately 135 feet.
Mr. LaPine: Is there a newer home or an older home on there?
11627
Mr. Roskelly: I would say it appears to be about a 20 or 25 year old home. I did
riot, at any time, make any solicitation to purchase that. I will
point out, Mr. LaPine, that I did not in any way put a strip, as
some developers do, to leave five feet between the property line
and the road right-of-way so that person could not at some future
date use it. This road right-of-way is on the property line and if
at some date this individual wishes to tie into it, certainly they
`4141. would have that permission.
Mr. Tent: That road that is going to be put in, that is a private road?
Mr. Roskelly: No sir. That will be a dedicated road.
Mr. Tent: The property owner to the east, will he be obligated to pay any
assessment?
Mr. Roskelly: No sir. I will bear all the cost for sewer, water and paving.
Mr. Morrow: Was there ever any attempt to acquire more property?
Mr. Roskelly: I reviewed it and I kind of looked but I really, if we relate to
the south because of the flood plain, there is a very small area
that could be built on but I didn't want to extend my cul-de-sac
much further. I couldn't seem to assemble a lot more land and I
found that this small seven lots, it is a separate community. It
is very safe and very ideal and most desirable living, especially
with children.
Mr. Morrow: Sometimes maps are deceiving about how much buildable property
might be associated with that ravine.
Mr. Roskelly: It is a very nominal amount and I guess I take the attitude that if
`fir I have a certain piece of land I always review the contiguous
parcels and in this case I chose not to go any further than what I
am showing you.
Mrs. Fandrei: What price range would the homes be that you plan on putting in
here?
Mr. Roskelly: $250,000 and up.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Can I ask what the lots are going for?
Mr. Roskelly: Approximately $65,000 to $70,000.
Rod Dunlap: I represent the owners, Joseph and Cheryl McGowski, of property at
16797 Harrison. They are the owners, in fact, of the forgotten
parcel 29a2, which is a 1/2 acre lot and which has the capability
to tie into a road if one was constructed so as to provide access.
The problem the McGowski's have with this particular plan, the way
the cul-de-sac is lined up, they have effectively created a lot
right next to 29a2 and prohibited access to Lot 29a2 and in doing
this it has created a couple of problems. First of all, the
natural access of Lot 29a2 would be via Six Mile Road, the same way
this subdivision is coming in. Furthermore, it is an 1/2 acre lot
11628
and certainly the Planning Commission is here to make sure there
are not problems that are going to come up in the future relating
to further variances. A variance would not be necessary to build
on Lot 29a2 so long as there was sufficient access to get into that
particular lot. The sufficient access is there and that would be
by way of this particular project. Another concern we have with
this particular plan is the trees that are going to be cut down.
This is a beautiful piece of property. We are very concerned that
the trees that are there which have some value, which have some
beauty, once they are cut down, they will not be replaced as
quickly. It is certainly going to have an affect on the property
values of Lot 29a2. I think it also creates an unnecessary burden
on Lot 29a2 to not provide some way of access to get to that
particular lot.
Mr. Gniewek: If this subdivision wasn't going in, what access did we have to get
to 29a2 then?
Mr. Dunlap: As of right now lot 29a2 would have access virtually through
Harrison Road, which would be extremely burdensome for that
particular lot or it could have access via 29a1 or the proposed
subdivision that is coming in here. As far as 29al, I think it is
apparent with the proper road that is being put in here, 29a1 would
have some access to that. Lot 29a2, my clients' property, it would
seem logical that it would also tie into that road. The oppor-
tunity is being presented right now for all of those properties to
have access to the road and that opportunity would not be there if
this particular plan went in as it exists right now. I am
concerned mostly with the long term.
Mr. Gniewek: You are saying if this project did not go, your access to this
particular piece of property would have been potentially from
Harrison Road. Why if this project goes in as proposed, why can
you still not get to that property from Harrison?
Mr. Dunlap: It is not cost effective and it doesn't really enhance the beauty
of the property or make logical sense. It would make the most
sense for the access to come down a road that is coming in from Six
Mile rather than Harrison. Harrison Road is not broken up to
create a street to go back to one little lot. You would be
creating one road to service one parcel. Right now the opportunity
is presented for a road to come through that can service other
parcels, including 29a1 and 29a2. We are not necessarily opposed
so long as some of the other considerations are met, there being a
road that comes through here and there being a cul-de-sac at the
end of the road. It just makes logical sense that this be used
so access can be provided for Lot 29a2 rather than simply access to
this particular project. I think that certainly has not been
addressed. We would request this matter be tabled so some of these
considerations can be drawn into this particular plan.
Mr. McCann: Is that 29a2 one separate tax parcel?
Mr. Nagy: The County tax records show that 29a2 is legally combined with the
larger tax parcel to the east and has access to Harrison Avenue.
11629
Mr. Vyhnalek: If it is combined with the bigger lot to the east, I don't see why
the developer has to worry about a 1/2 acre lot that has access to
Harrison. With the land he has, there is no way he could bring
that cul-de-sac down without losing a lot.
Mr. Dunlap: I don't know if that is necessarily true but right now there is no
access to 29a2 with that cul-de-sac put in the way it is now.
Now
Mr. Vyhnalek: What obligation does Mr. Roskelly have to see that 29a2 is taken
care of. Are you going to pay for the improvements?
Mr. Dunlap: There are separate legal descriptions. If they are on the same tax
parcel, that is news to me but they certainly were conveyed by
separate legal descriptions.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think it would be a hardship on the developer.
Mrs. Fandrei: How long ago did your clients obtain this piece of property?
Mr. Dunlap: Just recently. Within the past month or so. They have two
separate parcels and now discover that this matter has been brought
before the board to have a new subdividion added in there.
Mrs. Fandrei: If they purchased a home with 29a2, they knew they had a landlocked
piece of property.
Mr. Dunlap: They purchased it as it is shown right there on the map.
Mrs. Fandrei: Without any expectations of anything else happening to that piece
of property?
Mr. Dunlap: I think the expectation would be that via Lot 29a1 or via the
Now property where the subdivision is being proposed right now, that
there may be a method of access to that particular property. There
is a certain amount of speculation that goes on and what we were
thinking of is an overall plan for the particular area. I think it
was represented that all surrounding properties were looked at and
I think that is a surrounding property that should be considered.
Mrs. Fandrei: My view is they purchased this property with the knowledge that
they had one piece of property and nothing further would be done.
Would you also expect the developer to put in sewers?
Mr. Dunlap: My concern is one of at least addressing the issue. I think the
matter is being brought in here for preliminary approval and on
that basis I think all surrounding property owners should be
considered. I think the McGowskis' concerns should be addressed.
They should be advised of what is going to take place. I don't
think that has taken place. We are requesting an opportunity to
having those concerns addressed.
Mr. Morrow: Have your clients looked into using the property to the north to
marry in with the road that I think Mr. Roskelly indicated that he
built the road so the people to the east could work off the road.
That is another alternative without putting the burden on the
developer. It is to put the burden on your client. Did they try
to acquire additional property?
11630
Mr. Dunlap: As I indicated, they have just recently purchased the property and
they received a notice of this particular hearing today and their
concerns have not been addressed. This particular plan ignores it.
If this plan goes through, then a decision is being made that the
owner of that property, 29a2, albeit my clients or anybody they
give the property to from here on in, is going to have to live with
that road being in that particular section. The lot to the west of
,w my clients' property is going to be there and that is something
that is not going to change once it is approved. I think it is a
matter that should be addressed before a final decision tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the petitioner is hearing all your words and I think if
he were to be interested in entering into a negotiation with your
client, he can certainly give you a signal to do that. On the
other hand I don't think the City is really in a position to
dictate to the developer how far he goes with his plan. I also
think if that land weren't developed, your client would not be any
better or worse off than they are presently because they can take
access to the land and unlock it by putting a road in from
Harrison. Obviously, it would be more desirable to have that road
go up to Six Mile than to cut it out onto Harrison but I don't see
that this action puts your client in any better or worse condition
than they were before this petition came up. Perhaps Mr. Roskelly
would like to address some of your comments.
Mr. Roskelly: Perhaps, to clear my mind and maybe some of the other people here.
As I read this, the original piece of land that lies to the east,
which is 29a1 and 29a2, that originally was one parcel of land. If
we get over here on Harrison, one parcel of land that has a home on
it but no number, and it is contiguous to 29a2, obviously the 29a2
was split from the large parcel, combined with the parcel on
Harrison Road. Yet this gentleman continues to speak about the
8410. landlocked 1/2 acre parcel of land. I, nor no developer, no
planning commissioner, no consultant, could ever, in their fondest
dreams, expect me, if in fact that is landlocked, to provide
utilities and access to it. Thank you.
Mr. Dunlap: I think our concern is just simply on a couple of grounds. We are
just not claiming the property is landlocked. We are saying it
would create an unnecessary burden. It is a matter of foresight
and long term planning. If the decision is made that this is where
the road is going to be, then that is where the road is going to be
and then my client will have to live with that decision. If the
decision is let's look at some other possibilities and they
consider that particular parcel, then that is a decision that could
be made as well. The problem is once it is finally approved, my
clients have to live with it and I do think that is something that
can be addressed.
Mr. LaPine: When your client bought that parcel, they were under the impression
it was two separate parcels. Our Planning Department says it is
one. Was it their intention when they bought that to some day sell
off 29a2?
11631
Mr. Dunlap: It was represented that they were two separate buildable parcels
and that is the way they purchased the property so access has
always been the concern you have with buildable parcels.
Mr. LaPine: At the time they purchased, didn't they know there was no access
back to that parcel?
`, Mr. Dunlap: From my discussions with my clients, they knew there was a
possibility that an access road could be provided by the lot that
is being discussed here.
Mr. LaPine: What you are saying is the only way it could be done if the
developer bought 29a2, then the road could have come all the way
down. Otherwise, if they want access to that lot, they have to go
off Harrison, with either a private road or a dedicated road to the
City. There is a possibility that if they did develop that and
they did bring a road, that they could make some deal with Mr.
Roskelly and tap into his sewers and drain but to ask Mr. Roskelly
to extend that road just to help out your client, I think that is
unreasonable.
Mr. Dunlap: I understand your position. It is just that once a decision is
made, then that is the way the property is going to be developed.
Rosemary Grunn, 28255 Six Mile: My trees all along here are beautiful. We moved
here 23 years ago. This used to be a clover field. We had an
environmentalist come through and explain to us what we have to do
to retain the vitality and the beauty of this region. The next
week I heard about this. I think we should have been privy to the
plans to disrupt our living conditions. We moved in here with 7
children, horses, etc. We are down to one horse and if this come
along, we won't have that horse. I think it would have been nice
if they would have come around and told us what they were doing
instead of just going around and measuring. They went around
houses and swimming pools without any permission from the people.
It is obvious, that we are losing our country surroundings but why
have an environmentalist come in and ask you to clean up this area
so we can enhance the value of our surroundings, which they are
gorgeous. Are we going to have to sell out? I don't have any
access to these landlocked acres in the back, that is currently a
pasture for the horse and a beautiful garden. We had deer in the
backyard. We have had fox in the backyard. We have had them all.
You have the embodiment of a beautiful life there and we are going
to lose it if this goes in. It is too bad they didn't come around
and talk to us and tell us what they were going to do to us because
there might have been a possibility that none of this would have
come to pass because if we are going to lose it, I have to get rid
of that land back there. It is well maintained. I can see how
they could get that kind of a price for the homes there but it is
really sad.
Elwood Manns, 28205 Six Mile Road: I live next door to the proposed development.
I am with my neighbor, Rosemary, in objecting to all of the
destruction of the cover for the animals, birds and all of that.
Gradually Livonia is losing. I don't know where you live but if
you don't live in an area that has some of these beauties, you are
missing out. I just object to it.
11632
Mr. Tent: I just want to make one comment to the people who are objecting to
the petition. Mr. Roskelly, his reputation within the City is that
he puts in a good development. We are talking about houses here
that are going to be selling for around $250,000 but the fact is,
he is aware of preserving trees and wildlife. He will see to it.
I live in the general area too. We are confronted with similar
situations and we have been here for 35 years and we like the
openness. There is a time for progress and you can't stop things
Naw
from happening but if you get a reputable developer that will come
in and do right by us, then we can trust him. I am certainly
hoping and knowing that he will do a good job.
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
Camborne Pines Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
##4-79-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Preliminary Plat approval for Camborne Pines Subdivision
proposed to be located south of Six Mile Road between Harrison and
Savoie Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the
Preliminary Plat for Camborne Pines Subdivision be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all of the
applicable standards and regulations as set forth in the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance ##543.
2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a reasonable land use
solution to a small parcel of land.
3) That no responding City department has objected to the approval of
this Preliminary Plat.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: 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 Preliminary Plat
approval for Cane Woods Subdivision proposed to be located on the north
side of Seven Mile Road between Gill Road and Gary Lane in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 4.
11633
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 Traffic Bureau stating they find
nothing inconsistent with the public safety concern of this bureau.
We have also received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating while they recognize that there are certain land
Niur constraints connected with the development of this subdivision, it
would be preferable to increase the Riverside Court right-of-way to
52' wide. We understand that this may cause two lots (lots 13 and
18) to be slightly deficient in size. However, the slightly larger
right-of-way requirement would allow some flexibility in terms of
placement of sidewalks, trees, street lighting, etc. between the
back of the curb and the property line. They state there appear to
be no other engineering problems connected with the proposal. Also
in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they
have no objection to its development contingent upon a proper water
main development for fire protection. We have also received a
letter from the Department of Parks and Recreation stating they see
no problems or discrepancies with the plan as submitted.
Lastly, we have received a letter from Lawrence S. Cohen stating
the following:
Please be advised that I am the attorney for Soave Developments II.
My client was the developer of Gill Woods Subdivision which is
located along the west side of Gill Road immediately north of Seven
Mile. The proposed Can Woods Subdivision will be located
immediately west of the Gill Woods Subdivision.
At the time the plat for Gill Woods Subdivision was submitted for
'Nw municipal approval, my client was required to delete a strip of
land approximately 8' x 1300' from the westerly border of the
subdivision. They were required to keep this land available so
that it could be combined with the unplatted parcel adjacent to the
west (the site of the proposed Cane Woods Subdivision).
My client was given to understand at that time that this additional
land would be reqired to permit the eventual platting of this site
in conformity with the requirements of the City of Livonia
ordinances and building codes. It was represented that without
this 8' strip, the adjacent land could not be developed to its
maximum potential.
If the proposed Cane Woods Subdivision is approved in its present
form, this 8' strip of land will, in effect, become a
"no-man's-land."
My client is willing to cooperate with the developers of this
proposed new subdivision and would be willing to sell this property
to them for its reasonable value.
Consider this letter as an objection on behalf of my client to the
proposed subdivision in its present form for the reasons stated
above.
11634
Robert Jenkins: I represent Angelo Constantine, who is the owner of ACO
Construction. I am going to address the issue of the seven foot
strip of land. If there are any engineering questions, Mike
Priest, the engineer, is here and Angelo Constantine is here.
Basically, since the fall of 1990 my client has been attempting to
purchase this 7.44 strip of land in good faith and, quite frankly,
we just can't do it. This acreage is just a little over a 1/4 acre
and my client has offered a price for that property that is almost
$112,000 an acre and it has been turned down and countered with
over twice that amount. My client is unable to do business with
them. We have to move forward with the development and that is why
we are here before you today. My client, Angelo Constantine, has
had three different plans drawn up. We started out with a 60 foot
plan for the street and when it became apparent they were going to
be unable to make any kind of a deal with the owner of that strip,
they submitted a plan to Engineering for a 50 foot street and then
Mr. Clark asked that the street be made 52 feet. That is where we
are at here tonight and spring is here and it is time to get going.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you put it in plain English rather than talking about so
much per acre. Could you just give us the numbers so we can
understand how far apart you are.
Mr. Jenkins: Our offer was $25,166 for the land. The counter offer was $65,000
for the land. Tonight there was a reduction but frankly, it is too
late. There was an offer that works out to be in the mid $50,000
level. I don't have anything else to say on that issue other than
we tried real hard.
Mr. Morrow: Did you get any type of alternative appraisal of the land? A
second or third party?
`1.- Mr. Jenkins: We haven't had a disinterested third party do that. It seemed as
though we were so far apart, it would be a waste of money.
Basically, what we are offering $111,848 an acre. That is a lot of
money for residential property. Why waste more money on it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, if this goes through and that 7.44 feet is left in limbo,
would that revert back to every homeowner on the east side.
Mr. Nagy: No it will not. It will stay in Soave Development's ownership.
However, they could, if they wish, convey it to the abutting
property owners on the east. Theoretically it is possible to split
it as long as it is attached to some property in the area.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If they build on the west, on the east side there will be a seven
foot strip of weeds.
Mr. Nagy: Unless it is conveyed to somebody.
er, that
Mr. Vyhnalek: Ihtogit iethersafterridiculous,
askedshimone
toorreeserventhe land.you
couldn't
I think
gettog
ethers
is just holding out for a little money.
11635
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Constantine, there has been a problem in that Gill Road area
with water. It is my understanding you are going to build a sewer
there that will alleviate the problem.
Mr. Constantine: Yes, that is a 66 inch storm sewer that is proposed.
Mr. LaPine: Where will that storm sewer come?
Nor
Mike Priest: Presently there is a 66 inch storm sewer that terminates about
right here. (He pointed this out on the map) During a storm the
water flows up into an open ditch. There is another pipe that goes
to the west and then it comes south and eventually crosses Seven
Mile and goes into the pipe over here. This pipe would be a
continuation of the pipe that was built with Bicentennial Estates
Subdivision and Bicentennial Estates #2.
Mr. LaPine: There will be a 66 inch pipe all the way down.
Mr. Priest: There has been a lot of flooding in the backyards of this area and
this will eliminate that.
Mr. Soave: I really don't know how to express myself too well. This man, I
don't think he knows what he is talking about. We have almost 3/4
of an acre of land there and when we developed the subdivision on
Gill Road, I was told to leave this piece of land so the people
next door could develop that land. Now this gentleman comes along
and he is trying to build a subdivision that doesn't conform with
the area. What are we supposed to do with that piece of land? Now
my attorney tells me I have a leg to stand on. We pay a lot of
taxes in this town. When I developed the subdivision on Gill Road
I put in a $56,000 sanitary sewer there and this gentleman here had
a subdivision across the street and he got to tap my sewer for
nothing and everyone down the road did the same thing. I don't
want to be in this situation again tonight. From now on I am going
to have to get my attorney in on this because I think I made this
gentleman a decent offer.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Soave, have you been paying taxes on that property?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: On that 7 foot strip, do you know what the SEV is?
Mr. Soave: No I don't. This gentleman said that we were going to appraise the
property and we even said that we were willing to pay for it.
Mr. McCann: Do you know what the City appraised it at?
Mr. Soave: I don't know. I have no idea.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, have you figured out the size of that property? We have
a discrepancy.
Mr. Nagy: It is 10,400 square feet. Less than 1/4 acre.
11636
Mr. Soave: We also have utilities in the back easement.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Soave, you said 3/4 acre and our staff has figured it out as
1/4 acre, as our petitioner has.
Mr. Soave: Maybe I am wrong on the footage. I'm sorry. But we do have, in
our easement in the back, where they can hook up to the power,
Detroit Edison, Michigan Bell etc. We also have outlets for storm
N` sewers over there. These are some of the conveniences they have.
Sheila Clark, 19403 Gill Road, Gill Woods Sub. : Unfortunately we don't have any
kind of neighborhood association. I am a licensed realtor in the
City of Livonia and I have sold over seven homes in the area in the
last year. The homes in this area start at a minimum of $170,000
and they are a minimum of 1700 square feet. The development that
the petitioner, Mr. Constantine, developed across the street,
dictates what the market homes could sell for in the area. I would
like to say I hope you are going to keep these homes over 1700
square feet. It will make the competition between the established
homes and the new construction more equal. I also hope you realize
the economic impact on the area's marketability if smaller homes
are put there and one of the reasons a large number of the people
in our area have moved here is because of the lot sizes. Many of
my immediate neighbors are from Dearborn or other cities that are
more congested and the lots are generally small. This is why my
husband and I chose to live in Livonia. For the last three Sundays
I have held open houses near the area south of Seven and east of
Newburgh and a lot of people come in to complain they did not want
to buy in that area because they were not getting any kind of a lot
for the price they were paying for the homes and they chose to look
elsewhere. I hope you don't set a precedent and establish a trend
that is not good for Livonia by putting small homes here and
ruining the marketability of the area. I also don't like
personally the way the lots are going to be offset. I think this
makes my home less marketable and it does not conform to the subs
in the area. The other concern I have is about the trees. I hope
they preserve as many as possible. I will commend Mr. Constantine
as he did a very good job of keeping the trees and he did a very
nice job on the sub across the street from me on the east side and
I hope that this sub will be very much the same as that one. I am
sure the area residents would all benefit from that and they would
be happy. The other concern I have is the topography of the area.
Behind my property there is about two feet from the back of my lot
where a lot of water collects. I hope that drain area for rain
water is not going to be at the back of my lot. I would just like
to have Mike, the engineer, confirm that he is going to take care
of the water problems that we have in the area. This property that
Mr. Soave owns is behind my house. There is a berm built up there
but the area that Mr. Constantine wishes to develop is a much lower
area. It is almost like a gully and I hope they are going to use
that berm to fill it in so those lots do not become higher than
mine and we end up with a lot of water. I know my neighbor that is
here tonight will tell you that he had a grading problem in his
backyard last spring and his whole yard flooded.
11637
Mr. Engebretson: You have made a number of points on a variety of topics, overall
do you support this proposal?
Ms. Clark: It would be nice if they did exchange the lot with Mr. Soave for
this property behind my house and make these lots bigger and put a
minimum of 1700 square feet or more so the marketability is more
equal to the established homes in the area.
Now
Mr. McCann: To the petitioner, are you going to have your subdivision
regulations in regard to home sizes?
Mr. Constantine: The deed restrictions in Gill Orchards was 1800 for a ranch and
2,000 for a colonial. This subdivision will be equal to or
greater.
Carmel Schembri, 19459 Gill Road: Like Sheila was saying, I am one of the
unfortunate guys that I spent $25,000 to fix my lot and I got about
two feet of water in my yard. It is a swamp. I am one of the
highest out there and we are willing, the whole street, to put some
money and buy that eight foot easement to stop these people from
building there because I am a bird watcher and a bird breeder and I
like to see the wild animals and birds. I don't know how they are
going to fix that water drainage in there because it doesn't go
straight. I guarantee you that there is going to be floods all
over the place. Something has to be done before you okay this. I
just moved to Livonia last year. I took all my savings to build a
house.
Mr. Engebretson: We remember your comments sir and your concern about the water.
We have been concerned about that too. That is why there has been
so much emphasis on that drain. They are talking about a 5 1/2
foot pipe coming down there, which can handle a lot of water, which
„ra. hopefully will get that water underground.
Mr. Schembri: Another thing is the water power when we water the lawn. Another
main problem is Seven Mile Road and Gill. Every week, if you look
at the police report, there are bad accidents. It happened to my
son. Every week, I guarantee you, there is an accident at that
corner and something has to be done about that. I want the police
there every day because people are not stopping at those stop signs
and people are speeding there.
Lee Norwood, 19290 Laurel: I have been out of state for a while. I originally
grew up in Trenton, Michigan and moved to Livonia because of the
beautiful area. I haven't had a chance to go around to all the
neighbors. I have walked up Laurel and many of my neighbors have
voiced great displeasure in the fact they are now planning on
developing this area behind our homes. When we bought this house
it was supposedly "undevelopable", which was a great selling point
to us. Every fall we get the wildlife coming in. We get pheasants
back there. We get birds, etc. If you have children, that is a
big thing. I have had no flooding problems in my yard but I have
heard about other people that are not as fortunate. To downsize
the lots. Smaller houses are going to affect the resale of my
property. The traffic on Gill Road. I have two little kids and
11638
the majority of people who have moved into this subdivision have
kids. That is one of the attractive things about it. More traffic
turning off Seven Mile onto the new street can cause more havoc
than you know. It is absolutely crazy over there. They go down
that road on an average of 55 to 60 miles per hour. The downsized
street. If a car is coming out, the other car will have to turn in
quickly. There is not that much room to negotiate around the turn.
,` The water pressure has been mentioned. When they start tapping
into our lines, where is our water pressure going to go from there?
Ninety percent of the trees run along that little creek. When they
come in, they are going to tear them all down. Are they going to
be able to replace them. Not in my lifetime. Not in your
lifetime. It is a great concern of the neighborhood. It is one of
the attractive things. I will have two houses looking at my
backyard. The lots are so small. If he is going to build a house
of any size, it is going to be right up there. My friend is going
to sit down and see what size home can be built on each lot as it
is blueprinted in your office. We on Laurel are very opposed to
this development.
Mr. McCann: I want to address a couple of things that we discussed here. I
realize your concerns. I have been a lifetime resident of Livonia
and I appreciate, as a homeowner, the way you do, the value of
having land backing up to a greenbelt area. You said the people
who sold you that land represented to you that it was
undevelopable. You may have some action with them. I think that
should be taken up. Unfortunately, you can't put it on an owner of
a parcel of land that pays taxes on it every year that he has to
develop it and maintain a greenbelt for the other people in the
City. We have gone through the zoning on this. This is R-3, which
is the same zoning you have. We have had past experience with the
developer, as you know, with the subdivision just south of the
street there. I have been through it, as a matter of fact I have
looked at homes there personally because I think it is a very
attractive sub that he has built there. As far as one of the major
concerns that you did bring up, which was a very big concern to us
and which we discussed, and I will refer to Mr. Nagy, and that is
the width of the street. Although we are reducing the right-of-way
to 52 feet, the actual concrete street will be just the same width
as the street you are on, Laurel. There should be no difference in
the street but the right-of-way, between the sidewalk and the
street, won't be quite as wide.
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: Therefore, as far as safety goes, it should not make any difference
in the street, only in the placement of sidewalks and the lots will
still be in the R-3 category and I think you will see a nice
development.
Mr. Vyhnalek: When your subdivision was built, they said the same thing about the
trees being destroyed. I think you have a nice sub. That also was
all trees. The same questions were proposed then. We went ahead
and made that sub and you love it there and the trees are growing.
This guy has property. He has a right. He owns that. All that
land in the northwest, it was all trees and subs were carved out of
it.
S..
11639
Mr. Norwood: I understand how development goes and how we move on.
Mrs. Soave, 9235 Gill Road: What I want to know is why did they make us leave that
50 feet? Why did they make us leave that piece of land? We could
have sold that piece of land to each individual lot owner.
Peter Lindberg, 34555 Northland: That is right at the end of the development. the
.. back of my lot is where the storm drain empties out into the trench
that runs down to Seven Mile Road. I have a concern about the
water there because in the three years I have lived there I have
seen that pipe at capacity many, many times. On several occasions
I have seen it at so overcapacity that there is water shooting
three feet out of the storm drains on Northland and also in back of
my yard. It seems to me that when 30 more houses are added on,
there will be that much more that drain will have to handle. The
other concern I have is the land back towards my house, that is
very low land and it fills up probably 4 to 5 feet deep at times
with water. If all that area is going to be filled in, I am sure
that is going to kill all the large trees back there. I was
wondering if that could be addressed.
Mr. Nagy: The goal of trying to develop property is to correct the existing
conditions that we are faced with. It is one reason why if the
City grants a zoning change, they encourage the development of an
area to correct the flooding and overflow of capacity of those
storm pipes that presently occurs. We feel we have an opportunity
here, by approving this development, to correct the situations that
exist in that neighboring area. Within your subdivision, you don't
have flooding. Within the Gill Woods Subdivision, you don't have
flooding. Where flooding occurs is in the adjacent undeveloped
properties that these pipes within the subdivision outlet to. When
the new subdivisions pick that up, the subdividers go through
detailed engineering plans, go through our Building Department to
evaluate it so they take the capacity, not only what they are going
to generate, but whatever comes upon that property, so as to leave
the area much better than it was. Unfortunately sometimes grades
have to be razed in order to get positive drainage to these areas.
To that extent trees may be in jeopardy but there is a City
ordinance that says trees that are outside of building areas, that
are four inches or larger, must be saved. So it is the City's
policy to save trees. To that extent we will but I can't guarantee
every tree because of the severe water problems that are in that
area that we are going to try to correct.
Mr. Lindberg: My main concern really was the drainage. Seeing that the pipe is
at or beyond capacity, just to extend it in the same size, doesn't
make sense to me.
Mr. Vyhnalek: My understanding is that it stops at your property. He is going to
go 66 inches all the way through his sub.
Mr. Lindberg: That 66 inch is beyond capacity many times.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Not if it keeps going down and connects into Seven Mile. It won't
be stopping at your property. Maybe Mr. Priest can explain that
again.
11640
Mr. Priest: When the Bicentennial Subdivision was developed, the Beitz Drain
flowed through part of Bicentennial Estates Subdivision and it
reached the south property line of Bicentennial where he is talking
about. From there north there is a 66 inch pipe that goes up
through Bicentennial Subdivision and goes through Bicentennial #2
Subdivision, all the way up to Windridge. It starts by Glen Eden
Cemetery, where that pond is. That is the stream as it crosses
New Eight Mile Road. It was built as the full size just to that point.
From there to the west there is a 18 inch pipe which will take the
dry weather flow. It doesn't flow up and come into the ditch. It
stays underground but it is only an 18 inch diameter pipe. So you
have a 66 inch diameter pipe that is trying to go into an 18 inch
diameter pipe, which it won't go. Therefore, there is an overflow
and it goes up about six feet into a manhole. That is quite an
obstruction. We are going to tap that pipe down at the bottom,
where the 66 inch pipe is now, and that pipe has a flow of about
215 cubic feet per second. It is a pretty large drainage area.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Will that cure his flooding in his backyard?
Mr. Priest: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Mike, how about the east side? The lady talked about that earlier.
Mr. Priest: She said she was about the 11th house north of Seven Mile. I
walked each property line. The area that she is talking about
flooding, is way, way west of her back property line. The area she
is talking about is 30 feet beyond her property line.
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
Cane Woods Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
#4-80-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
30, 1991 on Preliminary Plat approval for Cane Woods Subdivision
proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Gill
Road and Gary Lane in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the
Preliminary Plat for Cane Woods Subdivision be approved subject to a
revision to the Preliminary Plat so as to provide for a fifty-two (52)
foot right-of-way and to the following additional conditions:
1) That a landscape plan for the landscape easements along Seven Mile
Road shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval
prior to submittal of the Final Plat.
2) That a plan for the subdivision entrance marker shall be submitted
to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to submittal of
the Final Plat.
for the following reasons:
Slow
11641
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable
standards and requirements as set forth in the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a reasonable and
logical land use solution to the subject land.
3) That no reporting City department has objected to the approval of
the Preliminary Plat.
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.
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.
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, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
sour #4-81-91 RESOLVED that, 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, be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-82-91 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 recommend to
the City Council that Petition 91-2-1-4 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan which designates the subject properties for office
land use.
2) That the subject properties have been zoned C-2 since 1952 but have
always been used for office purposes.
11642
3) That there are already sufficient commercial uses, such as are
permitted by the existing C-2 district, established within close
proximity of this subject location.
4) That the existing C-2 zoning represents a classic case of spot
zoning which is contrary to good planning and zoning principles and
is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan.
'New
5) That the proposed OS zoning district is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
6) That the proposed OS zoning district accommodates the existing
office uses currently taking place on the property as well as all
former uses which have been conducted on the property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
X1543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
It was determined to leave Petition 90-12-2-34 on the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
X14-83-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 621st Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on April 16, 1991 are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
`rr.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
X14-84-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Classic Canopy on behalf of
Cantoro Market for a new awning sign at 19710 Middlebelt Road be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the awning sign for Cantoro Market as shown on the plan prepared
by Classic Canopy dated March 1991 is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the awning will be non-illuminated and in the future if the
petitioner sees a need for illumination, he shall come back to the
Commission with a proposal for review and approval;
3) That there shall be no window sign allowed on this building as proposed
by the petitioner;
4) That a plan for a new ground sign and landscaping be submitted by the
petitioner for approval within thirty days.
'1r
11643
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-85-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
91-4-8-6 by Medora Building Co. requesting approval of all plans
w.
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a warehouse addition to an existing commercial
building on the south side of Plymouth Road just west of Wayne Road in
Section 33, subject to the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan 5774 Sheet SD-1 dated 4/26/91 prepared by Thomas W.
Kurmas and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan 5774 Sheet A-1 dated 4/3/91 prepared by Thomas W.
Kurmas and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That a cash bond or letter of credit in the full amount necessary to
cover the cost of the unfinished site improvements shall be deposited
with the Inspection Department prior to occupancy of the addition.
4) That the conditions contained in the letter dated April 24, 1991
from George LaForest which would indicate the various phases he
would go through to correct the various code deficiencies that
exist on the property shall be adhered to.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
Now approved, it was
#4-86-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
91-4-8-7 by Moore Furnace Co. requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal
to construct an addition to an existing building on the south side of
Five Mile between Inkster and Harrison in Section 24, subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan as revised shown on Sheet A-1 prepared by Harry
E. Conner is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Building Plan shown on Sheet A-4 prepared by Harry E. Conner is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the Landscape Plan shown on drawing prepared by the petitioner
dated 4/22/91 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 Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
'ay
11644
#4-87-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Revised Site Plan dated 4-1-91 to allow for a second
driveway submitted in connection with Petition 87-5-2-16 by Michael
Boggio Associates for waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping
plaza on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge and Spanich
Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 be approved.
`r.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: McCann, Kluver
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 622nd Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on April 30, 1991 was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
'i _;7/
`"
Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary
ATTEST: C�'��'Y�Jac(144
Engebratson, Chairman
jg