HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-02-1120070
MINUTES OF THE 8W PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 859" Pudic Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine Carol Smiley
Members absent: John Walsh
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; Bill Popperger, Planner I; and Ms. Margie Roney, Secretary, were
also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only pudic hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 200241-0146 33400 SIX MILE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
11-01-16, submitted by the City Planning Commission
requesting to rezone property located at 33400 Six Mile Road
located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Farmington
Road and Francavilla Drive in the Southeast % of Section 9
from C-1 to OS.
20071
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are two items correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated January 15, 2003, which reads as
follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The legal description is correct.
There is no additional right-of-way required at this time. We
trust that this will provide you with the information requested."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
We have received a letter signed by Bryan L. Amann, from the
law firm of Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton & Amann,
LLP, dated January 21, 2003. Mr. Amann is the attorney
representing the owner of the subject property. The letter
protests the proposed rezoning. Each Commissioner has
received a copy of this letter. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
The City of Livonia is the petitioner, so I am going to open the
floor to audience communication. Anybody wishing to speak
may come to either podium to be heard.
Bryan L. Amann, from the law firm of Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton &
Amann, LLP, 355 N. Canton Center Road, Canton, Michigan
48187. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. Chuck
Tangora said to say hello and give you his best. I know you've
had the opportunity to read the correspondence I provided. I
will not take you back over that word for word. I just want to
emphasize a couple points out of the correspondence. First, on
behalf of the owner, we are opposed to the rezoning for reasons
stated in the letter. We fundamentally believe by leaving the
zoning in tact that, number one, the site plan which you just
recently recommended approval of and the Council approved
was, in fad, done under the C-1 standards and all those issues
were met pursuant to G7 standards. Number two, the ability for
the future use of this property for purposes of not only the
owner, but also the City, I think are enhanced in terms of the
potential tenants. We're not planning on going anywhere right
away, but you hate to foreclose options in terms of the future of
what available for this property. Fundamentally, it comes
down to a belief that knowing the concems you have regarding
C-1 zoning and the potential uses everybody focuses on. We
could have certain types of commercial uses, and if we change
it to OS, we feel a little more protected because we have what
we feel are uses which have less impact. They don't affect
20072
neighbors and don't create as many issues to adjacent property
owners. I certainly understand that, but I think when you review
your own ordinance as it relates to the OS cistnct, which is the
setbacks and all those issues regarding OS, are essentially
three pages. C-1 uses are eight pages because the City has
taken great pain and effort in its ordinance process to prated
not only the community but adjacent property owners. It gives
great attention to every single potential use under a G7 use. I
think by changing the zoning down to OS, you then will lake
away the ability to have that extraordinary control. In fad, you
can end up with buildings with much smaller setbacks. I think
we're looking at a front yard setback of 40', a rear yard of 15',
whereas with the G7, your ability to control and impose greater
restnctions on the location of the building and operations are
much greater. So for the short thumbnail sketch of what I had in
my letter, for those reasons, we really would hope that you
would deny the OS and approve our recommendation for G7 at
this point and time. I'd be glad to answer any questions you
may have.
Mr. Shane:
How long a lease does your dient have on the property?
Mr. Amann:
Our client owns the property.
Mr. Shane:
Oh, he owns the property?
Mr. Amann:
He owns the property. Right.
Mr.Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
When you say your client owns the property, the eye clinic owns
the properly?
Mr. Amann:
The name of the company which owns the property is CF
Livonia, LLC, and the person who runs and operates the eye
clinic is the principal in that business as well.
Mr. LaPine:
As you know, the City Council sent this back to us to look at and
that's what we're doing.
Mr. Amann:
Right.
Mr. LaPine: But I dont see where any harm is being done to you. Number
one, you have your eye clinic in here. Really, it's an office -type
of operation. Number two, we looked at the plans and
everything and approved it. You're spending a lot of money to
renovate that building, a lot of money. Therefore, it leaves me
to believe that you're going to be there for at least ten years. A
20073
lot of things can happen in ten years. At the end of ten years, if
your client moves out or even sooner, and you couldn't rent that
building or lease it again as OS, you always have the option to
come back and askfor a rezoning backto C-1.
Mr. Amann: I'm so glad you raised that. That goes right to the crux of the
concern. When they purchased the property and went through
the whole site plan approval process, it was with the belief that,
yes, we can pay the commercial price for this property and, yes,
we can feel flee and really willing to make a strong financial
commitment to the building because we know that if for some
reason the eye clinic didn't work out, we have commercial
property here. We could certainly get our value back out it. So
what you raise as a non -issue is really the crux of the issue for
my client. They made the assumption in purchasing the
properly, and then made those kinds of improvements knowing
that with C-1 zoning, if for some reason there was some miracle
cure for eye issues and eye problems tomorrow and they were
out of business, they would still have a C-1 zoned property
where they would be able to get the value of those
improvements and the value they paid out of the property.
That's what it really comes down to.
Mr. La Pine: Because of the renovation they are doing in that building, which
we have seen, it's not logical that the type of C-1 we may be
talking about here would go in there without renovating the
building all over again, because he's got all the laser operations,
the operating rooms, and everything. It still gets back to the
core issue here. You always can ask for rezoning. I probably
won't be here. Maybe none of us will be here len years from
now. I would think that because we don't have one of these for
laser surgery, except for SL Mary's Hospital, it's going to be a
very successful operation and that you're not going to lose your
tenant or anything. So I don't really see where the problem is.
Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amann: Just one quick response. I appreciate that. As you know,
though, as a practical issue, its always easier to get a property
down -zoned essentially from commercial. Its much, much
harder to go the other way. I certainly respect and acknowledge
the fact that, yes, we could always come back at some later
date.
Mr. McCann: Briefly, Mr. Amann, all of us sat up here when your clients came
in and they came in with good faith. They told us what they
want to do and this is the type of business. They want to
become part of the community. We look them at their word that
they are making a long-term commitment to this community.
20074
We allowed them to expand the use with the intention that
they're expanding this site for this purpose. Understanding the
purpose they were going to use it for, none of us had a problem
with it. We wanted it to look nice. We wanted it to do
everything it could for their use. I would not have a problem
someday down the road looking at rezoning it back if I thought
the type of use would be reasonable. But we expanded the site
for an office -type use. I didn't have a problem with that. I didn't
think it would upset the neighbors. It abuts residential. But if
they decide to sell it next week, and come in with a C-1 use that
may not be appropriate right up next to residential, I'd have a
problem with expanding that type of use. So, I sympathize with
your client. I certainly don't want to see him lose on an
investment. I think that is a prime Livonia area. We're seeing
some growth there. We've got the new condominiums going up
there. I think he's probably made a pretty good investment for
the long tern. But I am a little concerned when you expand any
type of use. When we saw your dient, he was well represented
and brought together a great plan, and we respected what he
wanted to do.
Mr. Amann: Sure. Sure
Mr. Pieroecchi: Sir, I won't belabor the point. I didn't go through all the
permitted uses here but I looked at some of the things that could
go in there as O1. Actually, the way that it is surrounded by
homes, etc., OS is much more appropriate in my opinion. But
you could have there an electrical store, an appliance store, a
bakery, a bike shop, catering, Christmas trees. That property
could tum into a Christmas tree lot with G1. I won't go on and
on, but there are about 15 pages of things, some do apply to a
C-1 and some do not. But medical office is the basic thing here
in our permitted uses under OS, and that's exactly what it is
intended to be at the present time. So I dont see any reason
why it really should stay C-1. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petifion? Seeing no one, I'm going to dose the
public hearing. Mr. Amann, you do have the opportunity to
speak again.
Mr. Amann: Out of respect for your agenda, I certainly recognize you have a
full agenda and will let you get on with it. Just one response to
the final Planning Commission's remark: I recognize the
breadth of uses which are available there. My point is, although
I acknowledge those uses, the C-1 zoning allows you much
greater control in terms of larger setbacks and other issues than
you otherwise would not have under the OS use. I understand
20075
your point about the compatibility of use. Certainly, its not
improper and it's not considered incompatible to have G7 next
to residential, but it would only be done with all the proper site
plan controls and setbacks in place. So that's the only point
there. With that, I won't take any more of your fime. I know you
have a lot of other things on the agenda. Thank you.
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
it was
#02-19-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on February 11, 2003, on
Petition 2002-11-01-16, submitted by the City Planning
Commission pursuant to Council Resolution 591-02 and Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, requesting to rezone properly at 33400
Six Mile Road located on the north side of Six Mile Road
between Farmington Road and Francavilla Drive in the
Southeast % of Section 9 from C-1 to OS, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-11-01-16 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed zoning classification will more dosely
correspond to the approved future use of the subject
properly for a medical facility;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a
transition between the commercially zoned parcel at the
northwest corner of Six Mile and Farmington Roads and
the single family residential zoning to the north and west of
the subject properly; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
zoning classification of properties along Six Mile Road
directly south of the subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
20076
ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-01-01-01 HENRY STEIN
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-01-01-01 submitted by Henry Mark Stein requesting to
rezone property at 15552 Newburgh Road located on the east
side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile and Ladywood
Roads in the Southwest %of Section 17 from R -2A to R-7.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first letter is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 15, 2003, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description is
correct. There is no additional right -0f -way required at this time.
If the petitioner plans to use the Newburgh Road storm sewer
as his outlet, detention will be required, and this project may be
subject to the Wayne County Storm Water Management
Ordinance if it is developed as a condominium development. If
the rezoning petition is granted, we would look for the petitioner
to evaluate the location of his drive with respect to the existing
Ameritech drive, an existing street light and a large pomerpole.
Because of the small number of units, we do not feel that a
taper is required similar to that which was installed for the
project to the North. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. We also have two letters from
residents in the surrounding area. The next item is from Tony
Greco, 36008 Middleboro, Livonia, received by the City
Planning Commission on February 7, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Several months ago 1 voiced my opinion to this
Planning Commission against the rezoning of the property in
question to OS (Office Services). Today, through this
statement, 1 would like to again voice opposition on the
proposed R-7 (Multi -Family Residential) rezoning. I believe any
resulting Multi -Family Residential structures that could be
constructed under an R-7 zoning, such as apartments and other
rental properties, would promote frequent tenant turnover. And 1
think tenant turnover would cause additional traffic and noise -
and this would ultimately lead to undesired instability in an
already congested area. It is for this reason that 1 strongly
oppose a rezoning to R-7 for the property in question. Let it be
known, however, that 1 am not against Mr. Stein developing his
20077
property. On the contrary, 1 think condominiums would
complement the Hunters Grove complex quite well. Perhaps a
rezoning to RC would be a more logical solution." The third item
is a letter from Nancy Pierson, 15699 Liverpool, Livonia,
Michigan, dated Febmary 11, 2003, which reads as follows:
"My name is Nancy Pierson and 1 have been a resident of
Livonia since 1974. 1 have lived at 15699 Liverpool, Lot 37,
since 1997. 1 am opposed to the rezoning of the Newburgh
Road property to an R-7 rental property such as apartments or
townhouses which would be a great detriment to the citizens of
Liverpool Street as this property is adjoining to the backyards of
myself and all residents of the west side of Liverpool Street.
The approximately Y acre plat of land at issue is surrounded by
another approximate four acres of land owned by Hunter
Homes, Inc., which is cumently under development by Hunter
Grove Condominiums. Historically, the land in question has
been of a great, ongoing dispute for the past 30 some years as
the adjoining neighbors have always been opposed to any
development which was of a non-residential nature and even
against housing that was not of a single family dwelling style. 1
have been an active participant at many meetings here at City
Hall since 1997 regarding the zoning of this property as 1 am
deeply concemed about the integrity, safety and property value
of my home and my surrounding neighbors. Condominiums
have been the best option available on the Newburgh Road
property and the addition of some form of transient, rental
property would be appalling as the residents of Liverpool have
previously experienced an array of problems (filth, danger,
suspicious611egal activities) from the previous two rental homes
that occupied Newburgh Road prior to the approval of the
condos." That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Henry Mark Stein, 6449 Rutledge Park Drive, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322.
I believe you have a copy of this.
Mr. McCann: Yes, we do. Are you going to be showing us something else?
Mr. Stein: No, it's the same thing you have.
Mr. McCann: Would you like to tell us more about your petition?
Mr. Stein: I am presenting this petition for rezoning of property to R-7. I
think this will fit in just like I thought in the past that the office
was going to ft. I see no problem. You wanted residential. I
am giving you residential.
20078
Mr. McCann: Just for the audience, would you explain what your intent would
be with the R-7 zoning?
Mr. Stein:
I am planning on constructing six units.
Mr. McCann:
Could you move your mike back a little bit? Would you give him
a pointer, please? You're covering up the screen from the
home audience.
Mr. Stein:
I'm planning on constructing six units right in the center.
Parking in the back and in the front. Two and half parking
spaces for each unit, which is required. I plan on having a little
parkway here for the tenants to sit if they desire. I think it's quite
clear, sir.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Our staff has reviewed this. Under an R7, you would
be allowed six units. Under R-5, you would be allowed five
units. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Under RL, the maximum number of two-bedroom units would
be five (5).
Mr. McCann:
I'm sorry. Under RL, you'd get five units. Under R-7, you'd be
entitled to six units.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
What is your feeling, sir, about R -C zoning, which would be five
units?
Mr. Stein:
Well, the object of this world is to get as much as you can. If
R-7 fits in, I would see no problem there.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
R-7 would fl in the building, but R -C would be much more
compatible. With R-7, there could be a lot of transients. With
RL, they would own R.
Mr. Skin:
Pardon?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
R -C is basically ownership.
Mr. Stein:
R -C is ownership. Well, I think we determined last time here,
when the audience came up and they were complaining about
Ameritech. They were saying at that time, Ameritech ruined
their property. They don't like living in their houses anymore.
They just about said that because of the high Ameritech
building. If anybody wank to complain about Ameritech, it
should be me. Now, how do I ever sell a piece of property, sell
20079
a home, to somebody facing this gigantic wall? Not many
people would be interested in that. It's just like Mr. Corbell said
in the past when I spoke with him, that's a hard sell for a person
to buy that. And we proved it by the audience standing up and
saying they hale that building. So who am I going to find to say
I love that wall?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Actually, sir, economics and that always generally plays a much
minor role than compatibility, acceptance by the neighborhood,
with this Board anyway. In fact, we ciscussed this in the study
session. It was the consensus that R -C would be more
compatible, but I just wanted to get your opinion on how you fell
about it.
Mr. La Pine:
The property that Hunters Grove is on, was that your property?
Mr. Stein:
Pardon?
Mr. LaPine:
What that your property. Did you sell it to him? You didn't sell
that to him?
Mr. Stein:
No, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Did he make any offer to you to buy that?
Mr. Stein:
He never made any offers. We went through that in the past.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I was just wondering if that was part of it. In your
statement that it's the American way to gel all you can get,
maybe that's one of our problems. We want all we can get, and
we don't have any consideration for our neighbors. We have to
get a little breathing room in here and try to be compatible to our
neighbors, and the most compatible thing to your neighbors
would be the RC zoning. Now, you only lose one unit. You
sure can't lose that much money as far as the profit you're going
to make on this property if you go that route. I just don't see
that, to be honest with you.
Mr. Stein:
The only thing that you can see, which they wanted in the past,
they wanted a park. They didn't want anything here. They
wanted a park. And I'm not going to give them no park.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that you have a right to sell your property and you
have a right for something to be developed there. The
property's large enough to have something developed there, but
there's got to be some give and take here.
rr:r
Mr. Stein:
Leave it worded this way, I am not a builder. No builders want
this property. Nobody wants to build condominiums. That's too
much of a gamble against that wall. No builder wants to buy
this. For me to put condominiums there, I have to hire a builder,
pay him his price to build it, and then try to sell it again. Who do
you think I am? How am I going to do all this?
Mr. LaPine:
Are you going lobuildlhe R-7?
Mr. Stein:
On the R-7, I will gel a builder.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, then somebodys got to rent d then. You've got the same
situation. You've got to rent them.
Mr. Stein:
Renting it, a person would be renting it for a year before they
can buy their own property. It's just like we said at that time at
the Council. They told this doctor who wanted to buy my piece
of properly, they said, 'Why dont you go and rent?" He is not
interested in renting. He's interested in owning.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas:
On these six buildings, what would the height ofthe building be?
Mr. Stein:
Mark, did you talk to the person who drew up these plans here?
Mr. Alanskas:
I realize that it's a rezoning, but I just want to see what the
height would be.
Mr. Stein:
It would be what the City allows.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? We did gel a couple letters that were read
into the record. I believe there are a number of people here
tonight that wish to speak to this. If we could keep all comments
within two minutes, we would appreciate it.
Sandra Ralston,
15631 Liverpool. Before I give my statement, I just want to
mention that Mr. Corbell told me that he offered to buy Mr.
Stein's land but Mr. Stein wanted more than Mr. Corbell was
willing to pay. It was over market value. I've lived at this
address since 1973, and I've been active in opposing anything
besides residential zoning for the Newburgh section. My
husband and I understood that we could not hold out for a
development of single family homes, so we wholeheartedly
backed the Hunters Grove Condominium project for the
20081
adjoining property. We are adamantly opposed to apartments
or townhouses for lease because of the transient nature of the
residents. We feel that rezoning Mr. Stein's plot to R -C for
condominiums would preserve the integrity of our neighborhood.
We have other concerns. Number one, six units on half an acre
seems rather dense. If zoned R -C, only five units would be
allowed. The homes that were formerly on the adjacent
property in the final years before being purchased by Hunters
Homes were rented out to highly undesirable tenants. The
properties of Mr. and Mrs. Don Hoppe and Mrs. Eileen Beale
have already been adversely affected by the lowering Ameritech
SBC building. Having a carport bordering directly across their
property line will further devalue the properties. We urge you to
consider rezoning to R -C, rather than R-7. Thank you.
Donald Hoppe, 15547 Liverpool. My properly abuts the Ameritech building and
to Mr. Stein's property. I feel for Mr. Stein because he is in the
same boat I was in for the last two years, abutting right up
against the Ameritech building. I got up one day and I saw a
high rise in my backyard. I can appreciate Mere he's coming
from, but its a bad investment. He's got a bad investment. I
don't want apartments back there to destroy what we have now.
We're in bad enough shape. My taxes were raised even after
this Ameritech thing. I got a raise in my taxes. I was not able to
come down here and do it, but I figured maybe the City might
help me out here. But I cannot have apartment buildings back
in that place with a parking structure behind me to min my
property valuation more than it is. I am emphatically "no"
against apartments. Thankyou.
Mark Weber, 15535 Liverpool. I live right next door to Mr. Hoppe, right behind
the property that Mr. Stein is proposing to build on. I second
everything Mr. Hoppe said. I want to encourage everybody here
to think on these lines. Mr. Stein has a bad investment and he's
asking us to please help him share in his bad investment. He
wants to put something up so he can minimize or get rid of his
bad investment. I would encourage him to then help us gel rid
of our bad investments. If you put the apartments up, then
maybe you want to buy all of our houses and help us get rid of
our bad investments. Because those house values are going to
drop. The difference is, we're already there. We bought and we
do have some say, and we do encourage you to please not
rezone that. Let that be for residential only, for purchase only,
not for lease, not for rent, not for anything but to purchase for
single family dwellings. Thank you.
Eileen Beale, 15559 Liverpool. His lot is directly adjacent to my backyard. I think
the fact that we're standing here tonight even discussing this
20082
issue is deplorable. What has gone on in our neighborhood this
past year is unbelievable. I was in my kitchen. I look to my left,
there's a brick wall. I look to my right, there's a brick wall. I
mean we would be totally walled in. He bought the land as a
single family home property. Why does it have to change?
There is a vast difference between need and greed, and that's
what this boils down to. It is pure and simple. He doesn't care
what's going to happen to our homes where we've raised our
children, where we've lived for years. He doesn't care. All he
wants is the best bang for his buck. And I just feel that, as a
Planning Commission, you're the keeper of the gate here.
We've had a couple of really bad issues go on. Don't make it a
third one. Please. I beg of you. We have to live there. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public hearing. Sir,
do you have any last comments? Mr. Stein you get the last
word ifyou'd like before we vote.
Mr. Stein:
I spoke with Mark in the past. I said, "Mark, if I build
condominiums, can I rent them out?" Thats my question to you,
panel. If I build condominiums, can I rent them out?
Mr. McCann:
Sir, tonight before us is just a question of zoning. Its whether or
not R7 is appropriate zoning in this particular spot. It seems
most of the neighbors would say, if you match the zoning to the
north, they could agreed to that. But it is not about rentals and
about what you're going to do with the property tonight. At that
point, you'd have to come back before us with a site plan if it
was rezoned to IAC or R-7. Tonight, the issue is whether or not
it's property zoned.
Mr. Stein:
So are you saying at a future time I should bring a site plan?
Mr. McCann:
Depending on what the City Council determines the zoning is to
be on this property.
Mr. Stein:
Oh, I see. All right.
Mr. McCann:
Anything else, sir?
Mr. Stein:
The ody thing I can say is they are just repeating the same
thing again. They're complaining about the Ameritech building.
Mr. McCann:
l understand.
Mr. Stein:
That's what theyre complaining about. I'm not Ameritech.
Theyre saying they don't like it. Well, they really didn't like
20083
Corbell's either in the past, and you passed it. They really didn't
care for that either. In fad, they didn't care for the offices in the
past. In fad, I still have a buyer who called me a few days ago,
a doctor. He wants to purchase this piece of land here for an
office. And that would have fit in. That would have taken care
of their problem of looking at that great big wall; it would have ft
in. But you voted against that also. I'm requesting, as the
petition reads, to rezone this to R7 because that will fit in. As
far as they're saying a wall and my building, that's not a wall.
Those buildings are going to be in the center of the property.
Its nowhere near them. It's nowhere near their houses.
Mr. McCann: All right. Thank you. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on February 11, 2003, on
Petition 2003-01-01-01 submitted by Henry Mark Stein
requesting to rezone property at 15552 Newburgh Road located
on the east side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile and
Ladywood Roads in the Southwest''/.of Section 17 from R2A
to R-7, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2003-01-01-01 be denied for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed zoning district will not provide for
development of the subject property in a manner consistent
with its size and location;
2. That the proposed change of zoning would allow for
greater density than would be appropriate for the area; and
3. That the proposed change of zoning would allow for an
intensity of use that would be detrimental to the adjacent
residential uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? I have a problem with R. I think that
instead of maintaining it as a vacant lot, it could be used as a
single family residential between the condominium, the
Ameritech building and abutting Newburgh Road. As it directly
faces onto Newburgh Road, I think a more reasonable and long
term use for that land would be RC to match the property to the
north. Therefore, I'm going to vole against the resolution.
P'llierr,
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are you going to vote to deny the R-7?
Mr. McCann:
No, I think that you can approve with RL. It would be the better
motion.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, we're voting Mr. Chairman to ...
Mr. McCann:
Deny R-7. I understand that. I think @'s better to send it to
Council with a recommendation for R-Czoning.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you want to make a substitute motion?
Mr. McCann:
Well, no. We can vote on this one. I'm just saying that I don't
want to vote to deny the petition.
Mr. Alanskas:
I definitely want to go with RC, but we've got to deny this R-7
first.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, cant we make an approving resolution to send it
to Council as an R -C?
Mr. Taormina:
You could provide for a substitute resolution to include the R -C.
Mr. Alanskas:
Someone else has got to do that.
Mr. La Pine:
Through the Chair to Mark, cant we go ahead with the denying
resolution and then add another point that it is our
recommendation that this be rezoned to an R -C classification?
Mr. Taormina:
There's nothing that prevents you from adopting two resolutions
this evening. I think in the past we've provided an approving
resolution with the other zone classification that you
recommend. But if you want to include in the same resolution
reasons why the R-7 should be denied, we can embody that
and do a single resolution, or, have two separate resolutions.
Mr. McCann:
How about ifwe amend thallo an approving resolution to R -C?
Mr. Alanskas:
I will withdraw my motion for denial of the R7. We can just go
with the R -C for approval then.
Mr. McCann:
Is that okay with you, Mr. Shane?
Mr.Shane:
Sure.
Mr. McCann:
All right. So you want to make an amended resolution now to
approve rezoning to R -C?
20085
Mr. Alanskas: Then we'll just go to the top again. I'll make an approving
resolution to go with R -C zoning.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Ms. Smiley, and unanimously
approved, it was
#02-20-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on February 11, 2003, on
Petition 2003-01-01-01 submitted by Henry Mark Stein
requesting to rezone properly at 15552 Newburgh Road located
on the east side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile and
Ladywood Roads in the Southwest''/.of Section 17 from R2A
to R-7, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2003-01-01-01, as amended, be
approved so as to rezone this property to RC, for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning, as amended to RC,
is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding
zoning and land uses in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning, as amended to RC,
would be consistent and commensurate with the multiple
family residential district that adjoins the subject property to
the north;
3. That the proposed change of zoning, as amended to R -C,
will alloy for the development of the subject properly in a
residential mode; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning, as amended to R -C,
will provide for more of a variety of housing types in this
area;
FURTHER, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the rezoning of this property to R7 be
denied for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed R7 zoning district will not provide for
development of the subject property in a manner consistent
with its size and location;
2. That the proposed change of zoning to R-7 would allow for
greater density than would be appropriate for the area; and
3. That the proposed change of zoning to R-7 would allow for
an intensity of use that would be detrimental to the
adjacent residential uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: The reason I supported the original denying resolution is
because I'm not convinced that either one of these zoning
classifications is the right thing to do. But other than deny the
R-7 and let it go on from there, I'm going to vote for the R -C.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution for R -C zoning and denying the R-7
zoning.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2003-01-01-02 BOULDER PINES WEST
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-01-01-02, submitted by Leo Soave requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between
Brookfield Avenue and Canterbury Drive in the Northwest''/.of
Section 10 from RUFC to R-3.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated January 15, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The legal description for the 82.5
foot wide parcel has an incorrect area. We believe the area
should be 0.584 acres. Additional right-of-way required for the
development is shown. This project will be subject to the
Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance. We trust
that this will provide you with the information requested." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
20087
Mr. McCann:
Dan, do you have a question?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes. Mr. Nowak, we have Items 3 and 4 that are both Soave
properties. Are these western three lots going to be developed
into cluster housing or will it be a standard R-3 development?
Mr. Nowak:
The proposal is to develop it as a ste condominium, which has
to conform in all respects to the R-3 district regulations.
Mr. Piercecchi:
In other words, it will not be cluster housing?
Mr. Nowak:
That is correct.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. And the same thing, I notice here, my calculations ....
Mr. McCann:
Dan, can we get the petitioner up first, please, before we go to
questions?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I want to just make sure it's nothing. Under the duster package,
he could
get seven units in here. Under the regular
development of R-3, he can get eight. Is that correct?
Mr. Nowak:
Nowyou're talking aboutthe easterly...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
On the east.
Mr. Nowak:
The density regulations pertaining to duster housing on the
easterly parcel would allow seven dwelling units. Due to the
fact that he's using the existing right-of-way of Seven Mile Road
for access for two of the parcels, that would allow him to have
eight lots that would conform to R-3 standards.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is the petitioner here this evening or his
representative?
William Donnan, Arpee/Donnan, Inc., 36937 Schodcrafi, Livonia, Michigan
48150. Mr. Soave has asked me to represent him here tonight.
This proposal, as per this conceptual plan, the latest one which I
prepared, shows the standard site condominium with single
family dwellings.
Mr. McCann:
You know, we keep talking about this site. Why dont we put it
up on the board?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
This is just a rezoning.
Mr. McCann: It is rezoning but we keep referring to the site plan to show how
the rezonng would fit. I think it's fair to let everybody in on what
we're talking about. For the audiences sake, when we put a
plan up, it's just to show haw the zoning could fl. It is not that
this site plan is being approved tonight. Its a change of zoning
this evening, but the petitioner is showing that if the zoning is
changed, haw it would fit in the area. Mr. Nowak explained
earlier that this is actually Item 3 and Item 4 that the petifioner is
discussing at the moment, and that it would typically be an R-3
subdivision. Under the new standards, we call it site
condominium. It meets all the residential R3 situations except
for one variation, that they would have to go to the Zoning Board
of Appeals. Sir, goon, please.
Mr. Donnan:
This conceptual plan shows how the three lots will fit in there.
This shows haw the three lots will fit in this area with a cul-de-
sac contained in the general common element, so it would be a
standard site condominium. The access will be through the
proposed Boulder Pines duster development as right now we're
proposing to bring the utilities in, the storm water, drainage
system. We think right now it will conned through this way. We
don't have any final plans, so we dont know, but we do realize
that we do have to provide for on-site delenfion on this. If there
are any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? As along as
you're up there and you have the board, why dont you go to
Item #4 as well, the west side of the parcel.
Mr. Donnan:
On the west side, we have six lots with 50' wide right -of --way
which would be in a general common element with the cul-de-
sac. Again, access will be through Boulder Pines. The sanitary
sewer and water main will come in through there. As far as the
on-site delenfion, again, we know it has to be in here. We'll
have to find a place like maybe out in here to put it, see if we
can run it back to Seven Mile Road. If not, we'll have to come
back through here. But again, this is a conceptual plan to show
how these Ids mightfit in there.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions on that section from the
Commissioners? What size homes would be going in this
particular area?
Mr. Donnan:
They would be similar to what's proposed for Boulder Pines. I
don't know the square footage. These are fairly large homes.
These are all proposed to have three -car, side entry garages. I
dont know about this side entry garage; it may have to be front
entry. Its going to be a similar type of home.
rr:•
Mr. McCann: I don't have any questions on this time. Are there any questions
from the Commissioners? I'm going to go to the audience. Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Bob Stockton, 17730 Fairfield. I've lived there since 1975. The question I see
here is one of the future of this land, which immediately abuts
the Nature Preserve, and the credibility of this developer.
Originally, the neighbors and myself became concerned when
this gentleman proposed a sewer through the Nature Preserve
on private property that he didn't even own. It continued with a
high density plan when it was originally proposed. And I'm
talking aboullhe Hidden Pines/Hidden Boulders ...
Mr. McCann:
That actually is a different developer. His son owns a
development company and that was his son.
Mr. Stockton:
Okay. We negotiated a lower density that he didn't think was
acceptable, and then negotiated further lower density only under
the threat of a mayoral veto. He's been less than forthright
about owning the adjacent land during that process. Now he
wants to develop the land on either side, again with loo high
density according to our requirements and not enough setback,
if you'll check that on the site plan also. Al the very least, we
would like to see the density maintained per our requirements,
and also look to the future. There is property north of what he's
proposing here that is going undeveloped, which I'm willing to
bet will be developed in the future dears. So what you set here
is a precedent, as you did with Hidden Boulders or whatever the
center is. It will undoubtedly come back to be a precedent as
this continues to roll on. Those of us who are neighbors here
feel this density is loo high to begin with, and I'd like you to take
that into consideration. It immediately abuts the Nature
Preserve. Thankyou.
Richard Lahay,
19000 Mayfield. Sony for my voice.
Mr. McCann:
Its okay. We can hear you.
Mr. Lahay:
Mr. Soave previously showed the R3 br wonderful homes. It
was supposed to have been moved, trees moved a little bit. If
you look at where the R3 is now, trees weren't moved a little
bit. They were chopped. It looks so bad that you really can't
believe it. He's building a pretty good sized house on an 80' by
120' lot. It has got to be three stories to be good sized.
Mr. McCann:
I believe there is a two-story limit on that.
20090
Mr. Lahay: Most of the houses on Mayfield have one-half or more acres.
80' x 120' is approximately a third of an acre. In any event, this
just doesn't fit the area. And I hope you'll do the same thing you
did the last time and turn it down. Unfortunately, the Council did
approve it.
Tim Clark, 17350 Fairfield. First of all, the posting for the zoning change - the
sign was parallel to Seven Mile. And you drive by that at 45
miles per hour. Its very difficult to pick out. And I think that's
why there is not a more overwhelming presence of the citizens
because I'm sure they would be up in arms. The R3 that is
being used as precedent setting was a major shock to the
citizens, I believe. One council member even said that it was a
mistake, and if they had known what was going on, they
probably would have voted differently. I don't believe that R3
zoning is appropriate against a Nature Preserve. There are
great homed owls in that area. There are all kinds of song
birds. There are some fields, standing water that's there. Even
right now, if you go back there, there will be standing water. Its
a very unique, feature full area. And RIF, I think, is appropriate
zoning for that. I think because of the way the sign was posted,
that very few people were aware of what's going on with this.
There needs to be a lot more public input because this Nature
Preserve is what we will have left for generations of people and
to have it being impinged upon by all these developments, I
think is a very poor thing to set for the future. And we really
need to take care of the proper business. Thank you.
Larry Sekulich, 18816 Mayfield. Basically, I would appreciate it if you would vote
against this motion. In the past, I've heard about a Master Plan
for the City of Livonia. Apparently the zoning has been created
for this Master Plan to create a City of Livonia that is very
appealing to people like myself. If we look at what's going on,
the look of the City is changing. Again, if you look len years in
the future, what do you want the City of Livonia to look like? Are
you going to be attracting people to come to Livonia and live
here? My feeling is, if something is urban or rural, leave it, if
that's the way it is on the Master Plan. If something is zoned R -
2A for single resident homes, leave it. That's the way its
supposed to ft in with the Master Plan. I know it sounds like I'm
maybe a little bit hard nosed about this. I'm not against
development. What I am against, though, is greed and putting
things in inappropriate places. Thank you.
Lawrence Butler, 18858 Mayfield. Shortly after the R3 was granted to Mchael
Soave, the parcel was cleared of trees and other debris and
other things. But something interesting happened that was a
20091
concern of mine. Shortly after that, 30 trees had tags, down the
easement along Brookfield, as well as on Mayfield, on the island
between the street and sidewalk. They were placed with red
tags. Those 30 trees, I suspect, are going to come down. It
was mentioned during the engineering review that the sanitary
sewer was planned for and taken care of. Nov is it, in fad, true
that the sanitary sewer will come down the Brookfield easement
and hook into the Mayfield sewer? If that is true, I'd like to see a
study by the Engineering Department that says that sewer is
adequate for the additional homes that will be added to that
section. They also talked about runoff water. The concern back
when the R-3 was approved for Michael Soave was runoff water
into the Nature Preserve. It was believed at that time that with
the parcel and the cluster homes, the whole area would be in
suspect of having too much runoff water. So there isn't much
room for any runoff water or catch basins to be actually
developed in that area. It seems as if the RUFC on the
properties was a step-by-step plan by these two developers to
develop the parcel and use other resources to bring in the
infrastructure necessary to support the land. As you look at this,
these two parcels are completely landlocked. Without the use
of the R-3 of adjacent property, there is no access. I wonder if
there are even adequate ulilities that could come to those
parcels, whether its gas and water and certainly the sewers. I'd
like to know what that study looks likes and whether its been
thoroughly evaluated for the ramifications for the parcels that
are adjacent to that.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. As you know, I'm one of your neighbors. I do live
on Mayfield. I did look at the drainage system. It comes in
there at Clanta right at the corner. I don't think those trees
being marked had anything to do with any sewer system that
would be involved with this project. Personally, I didn't know
what those were. I assumed it might have to do with the Ash
tree removal.
Mr. Butler: No, they are Linden trees.
Mr. McCann: Are they? Yeah. I wasn't sure why they were marked.
Mr. Baler: Those 30 trees down the Brookfield side, and if you look at what
was proposed by the R3, it ends up those trees will be
removed. Although its utility usage, who replaces those trees?
Also, I believe that when our developer came in, he had a plan
that the sewer would go to Six Mile. He had to develop the
sewer size. The last two houses on that parcel are my house
and the neighbors house. I think those sanitary sewers are
sized for only those two houses. So what I suspect and believe
20092
is that it will be necessary to dig up that portion of the sewer and
extend it and make it larger, so it can handle I've heard as many
as 25 houses, whether its the duster houses and these
additional condominiums. It seems like that is an awful lot of
development in an area where there is no plan for sanitary
sewer, other than tapping into a sewer that's not designed to be
adequate for that addition.
Mr. McCann:
Unfortunately, we don't have an engineer here from the City
tonight to answer the questions. That would have to come back
in site plan review.
Mr. Butler:
If it's changed at this point, then it's almost like there's a license
to go ahead with the provision.
Mr. McCann:
Not necessarily. I dont know where the sewer is going to go.
My understanding was that it wasn't ever going to go on the
Brookfield side though. It was going to be back through the
undedicated street.
Mr. Butler:
Well, Brookfield is vacated there.
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. Baler:
But what about these 30 trees? When my wife did call to fnd
out why the trees were tagged, she didn't gel a straight answer
at first. Then finally after she referred to the council member
that she had talked to, she was told it was for a survey. Now I
know the sanitary sewer is down the center of our street
because we were one of the first homeowners on the street.
Other than that, I can't understand why those trees would be
tagged. It seems as if any time a developer comes in, it's
always been the responsibility of the developer to develop the
inner structure and not have it as a burden of the City or
homeowners.
Mr. McCann:
That's already done. The sewer, whatever is going in with the
sewer, has already been approved, as you'll recall. The prior
pefition from Michael Soave for Boulder Pines is already in.
Whatever was done with regard to the sewer, we have no
control over it.
Mr. Baler:
I understand that. This addition will even overload that portion
more so.
Mr. McCann:
That's an engineering queston that I cant answer. Thank you.
Mr. Baler:
Thankyou.
20093
Mark Brichford, 32285 Seven Mile. I also own the property right next door at
32295. We are directly east of the proposal. We live where we
live because we enjoy the large lots and the privacy. If this
were to pass, we would lose that. I don't want to see anything
developed in there, but if something has to go in there, it's
zoned RUF so if we can build half acres lots, there's plenty of
land there to do that. I don't see why we need to make it 80' x
120'lots. Thank you.
Jan Afonso, 9918 Hubbard. Bear with me, Mr. Taormina. You'll hear a speech
much like the one you heard last night. Early city planners in
writing their Master Plan counted a lot on a balance of open
spaces and developed spaces to create the beautiful character
of our City. Their Master Plan, as you know, won the distinction
for Livonia of best planned city in Michigan. All over town,
however, rural urban farm properties are being rezoned to allow
for higher density housing projects and often condos. As you
know, your agendas contain requests of this type nearly every
month. The rural urban farm zoned properties in our City give
our city that country -in -the -city character that people so often
praise and that has brought a lot of people to our city. Now, this
month, FOSL, Friends of Open Spaces in Livonia, is
celebrating one year of existence. We now have a mailing list of
over 400 people. More than any other issue, this is the issue
that those of us on the Board of our organization here are
concerned with - the loss of the rural urban farm properties and
that the open spaces are going to be lost a small piece at a
time. By definition, rural urban farm areas are sparsely
populated. So when a project is proposed, there are few
neighbors around to protest it. I know you have the best
interests of our City at heart, and I know you are thinking about
the future of this city. I would like to ask of you that you
remember that you're here representing the people because the
people can't always come and because the people aren't
always even aware that this is going on until they see the trees
come down and the bulldozers pull up. Then they get upset.
But then, of course, its loo late. So I would like to ask, as you
hear this plan and you consider this rezoning, that you dilize
every tool that you have available to you to try and realize the
best possible results in terms of open space and that area. Its
really tough to hold out for rural urban farts when there is an R-3
right smack dab in the middle now. I remember going to those
hearings and hearing the folks that lived near this property say,
the gentleman awns the properties on both sides as well. I
heard comments to this effect, and it seemed like the people
that live there could tell that this was larger than just the thing in
the middle, that it was going to go further. As our Planning
20094
Commission, it seems like you should have been made aware
back then that this was coming too. Maybe in the interest of
good planning, it would have been nice to visualize the entire
project. Perhaps it wasn't possible. But now since it's coming
after the fact, with the two sides flanking the middle, I do hope
and would ask that you do everything you can to preserve the
open space that is so close to our Nature Preserve. Thank you
very much.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public
hearing. Sir, do you have any last comments?
Mr. Donnan:
I'd like to respond to a couple of comments that were made as
far as the trees being tagged on Brookfield. My company
tagged those trees and located them at the request of the City
Engineering Department. As far as the adequacy of the sanitary
sewer, the sanitary sewer has been designed, submitted for
approval and I believe it's going to be permitted very shortly. It
will con up Brookfield to Seven Mile Road and then along Seven
Mile Road. As far as the existing homes on the lots to the north,
they are going to remain. Mr. Soave will not be buying this
house. He does own this lot, so he will retain that. The houses
will remain. If there any other questions I can answer, I'd be
happy to answer them. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas:
Being that we have the site in the middle, which is R3, and they
are proposing one on each side, I will make an approving
motion.
On a motion
by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
approved, it was
#02-21-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on February 11, 2003, on
Petition 2003-01-01-02, submitted by Leo Soave requesting to
rezone properly located on the south side of Seven Mile Road
between Brookfield Avenue and Canterbury Drive in the
Northwest % of Section 10 from RUFC to R-3, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2003-01-01-02 be approved forthe following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
20095
2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of Low Density
Residential land uses in this general area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an existing zoning distad occurring on
adjacent property to the east; and
5. That a previous zoning change that has occurred in the
area to the east has set a precedent for rezoning to the R-3
classification.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Chairman, would this be for Items 3 and 4?
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, one is three homes, one is eight.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I know, but can there be one motion?
Mr. Alanskas:
Can we do them both the same or should we do them
separately? I think we should do them separately.
Mr. McCann:
We will vole on them separately.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well vote on them separately?
Mr. McCann:
Yes. Any other discussion? I have a couple comments. This
one is kind of lough and kind of personal because I live in the
area. I spend a lot of time in the Nature Preserve. As Ms.
Afonso staled, the Planning Commission did vote against the
R-3 zoning originally for Boulder Pines. Then I became very
active against the cluster development there. It turned out, with
the Mayor's assistance and the Council working with the
developer, that the impact was reduced greatly, but it still had a
'T' in there. It was known at the time that Mr. Soave owned
property to the west and was negotiating for a piece on the east.
I dont know it was the intent, but it was the idea that it would
someday be zoned to a different classification. My position has
always been that we can't isolate this R-3 piece. It doesn't
make sense. By putting the cul-de-sacs on the end of this, you
20096
complete the sub and you end it right there. It will slop future
encroachment into the Nature Preserve or into the RUF to the
east. I wasn't pleased with the original zoning of this property
but I think the end result will be a nice subdivision. It will be a
complete subdivision, and end any further encroachment.
Therefore, I am going to vote for the approving resolution.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the
motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted. It
will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resolution.
Do you have some correspondence on this item, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-01-01-03 BOULDER PINES EAST
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-01-01-03, submitted by Leo Soave requesting to rezone
properly located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between
Brookfield Avenue and Canterbury Drive in the Northwest''/.of
Section 10 from RUFC to R-3.
Mr. McCann:
Do you have some correspondence on this item, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated January 17, 2003, which reads as follows:
`Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The legal descriptions for the
project are correct. Our records indicate that the 60 feet of
right-of-way for Seven Mile Road needs to be dedicated for both
parcels. The interior right -0f -way for the project is shown. This
project will be subject to the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance. We trust that this will provide you with
the information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Does the pelifioner have any additional information? No? Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petifion? Seeing no one, I will dose the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
approved, it was
#02-22-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on February 11, 2003, on
Petition 2003-01-01-03, submitted by Leo Soave requesfing to
20097
rezone properly located on the south side of Seven Mile Road
between Brookfield Avenue and Canterbury Drive in the North
%of Section 10 from RUFC to R3, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-
01-01-03 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of Low Density
Residential land uses in this general area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an existing zoning district occurring on
adjacent property to the west; and
5. That a previous zoning change that has occurred in the
area to the west has set a precedent for rezoning to the R-
3 classification.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
YILTi .F.JM»YYI[QkjIf'IrLYA5PZIYbiI 11I1YA=]=1 =1dz4971C1=1&1:191:J9=
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2002-12-02-27, submitted by Nasret Kallabat, on behalf of
Livonia Beer & Wine Shoppe, requesting waiver use approval to
utilize an S.D.D. license in connection with an existing beer and
wine shop located on the northeast comer of Joy and Hix Roads
in the Southeast%of Section 31.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
rr•:
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 15, 2003, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. Our records indicate that
the petitioner also owns the south half of the adjacent vacated
alley, which should be added to the legal description. There is
no additional right-of-way required at this time. We trust that
this will provide you with the information requested." The letter
is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January
7, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate an
S.D.D. license on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated January 13, 2003, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans regarding a
proposal to operate an S.D.D. License located on the northeast
comer of Joy Road and Hix Road. Currently, this business has
17 parking spaces with no handicap parking provided. There is
a space on the southwest comer of the building that used to
have blue pavement markings (this has wom away), and there
is no sign marking it as handicap parking. We recommend that
the handicap parking space be property marked. We have no
further recommendations regarding this proposal." The letter is
signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 13,
2003, and revised January 20, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of December 30, 2002, the above -
referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) At a site inspection on January 3, 2003, this site had trash
and debris outside behind the building and on the east side. (2)
This site had an unclosed dumpster situated in the parking lot.
(3) The parking lot needs repair, resealing and double striping.
A property marked, signed and sized accessible parking space
should be added. (4) The employee on duty was advised that
this store has excessive window signage, which will be
addressed by this Department This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
20099
David W. Yaldo, David W. Yaldo & Associates, P.C., 4036 Telegraph Road, Suite
204, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302. 1 am the attorney for the
petitioner. Just by way of background, this store has been at
the present location for at least 20 years. It has been a fixture in
the community. One of the reasons that we're asking to have
an S.D.D. license is to be in a more competitive and viable
economic position. The nearest licensed S.D.D. establishment
is in Westland. For a lot of residents living in Livonia, it is very
inconvenient to get to, especially time that want to walk to a
particular store, and particularly this one. The request that we
have tonight fits perfectly with the type of business that we
have, and that is a beer and wine license. The S.D.D. license
would only augment our business. It wouldn't change the
nature of the business at all. We recognize the deficiencies with
the parking area. That's something that we will be taking care
of in the spring, together with the dumpster. We will be
enclosing that dumpster and complying with all of the
requirements that we have before you. Other than that, I realty
have nothing else to add. I do have one letter from a resident, if
I can present that to you for your review. I think you will find that
many residents will support this. It is convenient for the Livonia
residents to have an S.D.D. license at this establishment. I
have nothing further.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, does your client own the property?
Mr. Yaldo:
I'm not sure. Yes, they do.
Mr. Alanskas:
And he's been there for 20 years?
Mr. McCann:
Do you want to introduce the owner and maybe he can answer
these questions?
Sam Kallabat,
Livonia Beer and Wine Shoppe, 38340 Joy Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48150. 1 am the manager and the owner of the store.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, you say you've been there for 20 years?
Mr. Kallabat:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm looking at the pictures of your facility. For the last 20 years,
what have you done to improve the building?
Mr. Kallabat:
We have remodeled a few times.
Mr. Alanskas:
You've done what?
20100
Mr. Kallabat:
We've remodeled a few limes.
Mr. Alanskas:
You're talking about inside the building?
Mr. Kallabat:
Inside the building.
Mr. Alanskas:
What have you done to the outside of the building?
Mr. Kallabat:
To the outside, we have done major things to the parking lot.
First of all, there was water that stayed in the parking lot. We
have redone the whole thing.
Mr. Alanskas:
Now, your attorney says that people in Livonia would not want
to walk to the other site. But that's only 250 feet away in
Westland, isn't it?
Mr. Kallabat:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
That's what our notes say. So its not that far away for people to
go to. What have you done in regards to additional landscaping
for that facility in the last 20 years?
Mr. Kallabat:
We try to keep it up pretty much.
Mr. Alanskas:
When you say "keep it up," what do you do to keep it up?
Mr. Kallabat:
Make sure the lawn is cut and it's cleaned around the store.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is d irrigated?
Mr. Kallabat:
I'm sorry?
Mr. Alanskas:
Is it irrigated? How do you water it?
Mr. Kallabat:
We really don't irrigate it.
Mr. Alanskas:
You don't water it. Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine:
I was inside your store. Under our ordinance, all the liquor has
to be behind the counter. I don't know where you're going to put
it because you sell pima there. The day I was there, there was
a young lady there. She told me they were going to renovate
the whole inside of the store. Is that right?
Mr. Kallabat:
Yes, sir.
Mr. La Pine:
Where are you goinglo putthe liquor?
20101
Mr. Kallabat: We have received a letter from the Slate of Michigan that
requested that we do not do anything until it's approved. The
liquor is going againstthe opposite side ofthe counter.
Mr. La Pine: The other side of the counter?
Mr. Kallabat: The other side of the counter. Yes, sir
Mr. La Pine:
Well, that wasn't what was told to me. I was told a different
story, but I'm not going to tell you what they told me. The store
is so crowded now. I dont know where you keep your storage.
There were beer cases all over the place. You had to watch
yourself when you walked in the place. The store is just loo big
to take on liquor because, unless you're only going to sell three
or four brands of liquor. I don't know where the heck you're
going to put it all.
Mr. Kallabat:
There is going to be a major remodeling.
Mr. La Pine:
I dont know if we really need another liquor store in that area.
Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shane:
Questions have been asked about landscaping and questions
about the inside of the store. Would you be willing to produce a
site plan, a building plan and a floor plan that shows exactly
what you have in mind there?
Mr. Kallabat: Yes, we will.
Mr. Shane: Inside the building, landscaping, the whole thing?
Mr. Kallabat: Yes, we will.
Mr. Shane: If it should be tabled, you'd be willing to do that?
Mr. Kallabat Yes.
Mr. Shane: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yaldo: If I could just take the lead and ask if I can table it while I
prepare a site plan to present atthe next meeting?
Mr. McCann: This is a public hearing. We have to do this public hearing
portion first before we do anything. Any other questions from
the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Please come down
and give us your name and address.
20102
Charles N. Frangie, 30800 Telegraph, Suite 2830, Bingham Farms, Michigan
48025. 1 am the attorney for a business located across the
street from the applicant. Standing next to me is the owner of
the business called Big Ben.
Mr. McCann:
Big what?
Mr. Frangie:
Big Ben, a party store. I would like to mention that the proposed
location violates the stale law which is the Liquor Control Act
because it's located less than 2,640 feet away from an existing
liquor place or store. This store is located about 250 away from
my client's store, and there could be an exception, according to
the state law, if the two stores or locations are separated by a
far lane highway. They are separated by a two lane highway.
Mr. McCann:
Do you have that section with you?
Mr. Frangie:
Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, there is a letter from the State of
Michigan. If I may approach the Board ...
Mr. McCann:
"R 436.1133, Rule 33 of the Michigan Administrative Code
provides as follows: 'An application for a new specially
designated distributor license or for the transfer of location of an
existing specially designated distributor license shall not be
approved by the commission if there is an existing specially
designated distributor license located within 2,640 feet of the
proposed site. The method of measure shall be prescribed in
section 17a of Act No. 8 of the Public Acis of the Extra Session
of 1933, as amended. This rule may be waived by the
commission for one of the following reasons: (a) If the existing
specially designated distributor has purchased less than
$10,000.00 in spirits from the commission during the last full
calendar year. (b) If the existing specially designated distributor
has a B -hotel or A -hotel license. (c) If the proposed location and
the existing specially designated distributors licensed
establishment are separated by a major thoroughfare of not less
than four lanes of traffic. (d) If the proposed licensed
establishment is located in a neighborhood shopping center ...
. or (e) If an existing specially designated distributor licensee is
located within 2,640 feet one or more existing specially
designated distributor licensees and requests a transfer of
IocaUon... "' Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Whatdid he say?
20103
Mr. McCann: I don't know. I'd have to do some work on it, but that's the rule I
was refening to Iasi week. Can my staff get a copy of that? Is
there anything else you want to say?
Mr. Fmngie: Yes, I would like to add more. That the area has on both sides
of the street, in the City of Livonia and in the City of Westland,
there are liquor stores, SDD licenses, and I do not think that the
area needs more licenses. I think the neighborhood has
sufficient stores within a reasonable distance and there is no
need for it. Of course, it drives the value of my client's business
down and the other businesses. I can name the other
businesses in the area that have liquor licenses. I think there is
no need for anew license. Thankyou.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak for or against this
petition?
Mario Aljarbo representing Mario's Italian Bakery of Westland on 8675 Newburgh
Road. I would like to object to issuing of the SDD license to the
establishment of Livonia Beer and Wine for the reasons that
there are enough liquor licenses in the area. I purchased this
business two years ago knowing the competition in the area and
that an SDD license would not be issued within one and a half
to two miles of the area because of the SDD licenses issued all
around the area. Also, my business will not retain its value and
it would be much harder for me to pay my business as a new
business.
Laura Callen, 38120 Joy Road. I'd like to address a couple of issues, one of
them being the party stores that do sell liquor in our area are
both Westland party stores. The Livonia store that used to sell
liquor in our area has been closed for the better part of three
years. I walk to the store when I go to the store. I often take my
children. I dont want to cross Joy Road and Hix Road with my
children walking to a store. Also, the upkeep of the store: in the
summer, they do keep up the lot. They do keep up the
landscaping. The trees are trimmed. The grass is cut. It does
look nice. I know quite a few times they've done quite a bit of
work to the parking lot. They put in a new sewage system so it
drains property. I'm not sure how often, but it's usually in the
summertime it's re -marked. They do normally have handicap
parking there. I just feel we should support a Livonia business
before a Westland business.
Charlotte Fournier, P.O. Box 85146, Westland, Michigan. I'm just here to support
Livonia Beer and Wine. As other parties have said, they do
keep up the store. They clean up the area. They do try to do
what they need to do. They do put handicap signs up. During
20104
the summer, they mark their pavement. I have seen this every
year. And I've seen them for the last 10 years. I'm planning to
move into Livonia, and I think it would be a great service. I think
they're going to make their store a lot better for Livonia.
Emir Kacharl, 38626 Alma Lane. I live about a quarter mile from Livonia Beer
and Wine Shoppe. I go aer there just about every day. The
people behind the counter are really nice people and they give
the customer good service. They take care of business. Also,
they keep the store in good condition - clean. As far as the
parking lot, in the summertime I see people two or three times a
week picking up sluff from the parking lot and cleaning and
sweeping. Thank you.
Dave Winn, 8906 Knolson. The only thing I can say is, in every field, and even
the field I'm in, its very competitive right now. And I bink that
you should consider Sam, this license, so that he can become
competitive with the guy across the street. And that's really
what it's all about. I think if he came in with a site plan, you'd be
impressed and he'd do a good job for you. And I thank you.
Jeff Ball, 37805 Woodridge, Apartment 204, Westland, Michigan 48185. 1 grew
up in Livonia at Six and Wayne and moved right over by the
party store there. I've been there about 15 years now. I've
gotten to know all the people and the whole family. It's a family
con business. They are really good folks. They take care of
their lot. They take care of their business, and they try to do
their best. I'd really encourage all of you to vote for this tonight
because they deserve it. Theyve earned it.
Mr. Fmngie: If I could have a brief rebuttal to the first lady who spoke in
favor? She mentioned that a liquor license is dosed now. I
believe she is referring to a business called Kirk's, which is
ready to reopen. My client has told me that he has talked to the
owner of that liquor store and they will reopen very soon. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann: I'm going to close the public hearing. The petitioner has the last
word.
Mr. Yaldo: Just a brief response. With respect to Kirk's, from my
understanding, that store has been opened and closed several
times. It apparently can't sustain itself as a business over the
last several years, and about three years ago it closed. With
regards to the issue conceming violation of stale law, I think
what was presented to you was a Michigan Liquor Control
administrative rule. That's not necessarily a state law. There is
a process that is followed. We need to go in front of the
20105
Michigan Liquor Control Commission if they deem that we don't
meet their requirements. Then we present our case before
them. And then if we can get an exception, we get an
exception. I don't think that should, in and of itself, have
anything to do with your decision tonight. This is strictly a
request to do something at that store that already
accommodates it. We already sell beer and wine. All we're
asking for is to sell liquor. We're not changing the character or
the nature of the store. If it has an SDD license, it only
augments it. It adds to it. We're willing to deal with all of the
issues presented, the parking lot and the interior as well as the
architectural, the landscaping, all those things. We understand.
We recognize that those are issues, and we're ready to deal
with those issues. That's all I have to say.
Mr. McCann:
If Kirk's license isn't being used, why not purchase that? I don't
think they waive it that lightly. I've known of many cases where
theywill nolwaive it.
Mr. Yaldo:
Yes, I've done a lot of work with the Liquor Control Commission
over the years. Ive seen them go back and forth, depending on
who the commission members are. Sometimes they are a lot
lighter than other times. I just don't know. I've had them waived
before and then I've had them reject them before. It depends
on the presentation and the facts and circumstances of this
case. And what I have is a party store that serves Livonia, and
then party stores in Westland that are opposing it. And that
really is an issue. The argument that it diminishes the value of
their store, that's an economic argument. That's like me coming
in and strictly saying, hey look, I need this to make more money.
Mr. McCann:
Isn't that what you said?
Mr. Yaldo:
No. There's more to it than that. We're also trying to serve our
community. You saw a stream of our customers come up and
tell you that, "We come to the store. We like the store. We like
the owners." We think they provide service, and we're asking
for more service that they could provide without really detracting
or taking away from the nature of that location. They are
actually adding to it because it will give you a chance to dictate
certain changes and certain modifications to the location - the
landscaping, the parking lot, things of that nature.
Mr. McCann:
We also have an ordinance in the City that says there should be
a 1,000 foot separation between SDD licenses. To me, the
intent of that is, "Hey, we dont want to pile them on each other."
The intent of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission is, we
don't want liquor stores on every comer. There are rules that
20106
you have to be so many 1,000 feet from a church; you have to
be so many feet from a school.
Mr. Yaldo:
I think it's 500 feet from a church and a school.
Mr. Alanskas:
800 feet from a church.
Mr. Taormina:
It's 400 feet.
Mr. McCann:
400 feet! Well, let's all throw the money in a pot and we'll see
who takes it home.
Mr. Taormina:
That's our ordinance. He's cifing the stale statute. Our
ordinance is 400 feet.
Mr. McCann:
Our ordinance is 400 feel. Okay.
Mr. Yaldo:
We're all familiar with the state statute.
Mr. McCann:
We're at200 feet here.
Mr. Yaldo:
Sure.
Mr. McCann:
That's a major consideration.
Mr. Yaldo:
You're 200 feet in two different cities. I mean two different
locations, that is number one. Number two, arguments
concerning clustering work both ways. Sometimes it's better to
have them in a closer relationship because that's where you
have all your party stores, rather than trying to spread them out.
This is a liquor license that we are buying from another location.
So it's not like we're bringing anything new to the community,
because there are a limited number of licenses and we're
spending good money to buy this license. We're ready to spend
good money to upgrade and remodel this building to
accommodate that license.
Mr. McCann:
Have they checked into Kirks? That was my original thought. I
feel more comfortable moving a license from within the City
down the road a half mile to this location. Therefore, I'm saying,
"Hey, I'm not adding any liquor license to Livonia, but I'm
helping this guy get along"
Mr. Yaldo:
I've not checked on Kirks. No, to answer your question.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
20107
Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say that the owners of the party store
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on
Pefition 2002-12-02-27, submitted by Nasmt Kallabal, on behalf
of Livonia Beer & Wine Shoppe, requesting waiver use approval
to utilize an S.D.D. license in connection with an existing beer
and wine shop located on the Northeast comer of Joy and Hix
Roads in the Southeast % of Section 31, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-12-02-27 be denied for the following conditions:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively shay 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;
have been there for 20 years?
Mr. Yaldo:
That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Why is it for 20 years he hasn't had a liquor license? All of a
sudden, he has to have a liquor license?
Mr. Yaldo:
I think the nature of the business has changed over the years.
Mr. LaPine:
What do you mean? How has it changed? In which way has it
changed? All liquor is liquor, beer is beer, wine is wine.
Mr. Yaldo:
No, its become much more competitive. I mean the competitive
nature of owning a party store has changed over the last 20
years. Your competition 20 years ago was other party stores.
Now its the Walmarls, and it's the local gas station that has a
"c" store in it. Your profit margin is diminished greatly. You
need to be able to serve and sell other products. So, no, the
whole mlure of the party store business has changed. Its not
what it was 20 years ago.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, I'll say five years ago. Why didn't they go out for a liquor
license five years ago?
Mr. Yaldo:
I think I can speak for him. Two years ago he called me looking
fora license. I dont think there were any available at that time.
One became available, so we jumped on it.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anything else? I'll close the public hearing. A motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, itwas
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on
Pefition 2002-12-02-27, submitted by Nasmt Kallabal, on behalf
of Livonia Beer & Wine Shoppe, requesting waiver use approval
to utilize an S.D.D. license in connection with an existing beer
and wine shop located on the Northeast comer of Joy and Hix
Roads in the Southeast % of Section 31, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-12-02-27 be denied for the following conditions:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively shay 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;
20108
2. That the City is currently well served with SDD licensed
establishments;
3. That there is no demonstrated need for addifional SDD
licensed facilities in this area ofthe City; and
4. That the proposed use is incompatible 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. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment if I may.
Mr. McCann:
Please.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I supported this motion because I looked at the track record of
this store. Number one, it is closer than 1,000 feel from another
SDD license. If it had an expressway between it, that's what I
would consider a major separation between communifies. They
have a very unattractive pylon sign. I think its possibly loo large
for the site. They have a Keystone, a Coors, a Killian, two Bud
Lite and six Miller signs above the window. Not in compliance.
Over 20% of the window areas have signs on display. That is
not in compliance with our ordinance. We have neon tubing on
each side of the side on the building facing. We have trash
abutting the east side fence. The parking lot definitely needs
repair and double striping. We have car bumper blocks on the
south side of the establishment laying on the sidewalk. And the
dumpsler lop is definitely in need of a lot of repairs. In fact, I
thought it was suggested at the onset through our staff that we
would like to see where you're going to put it. It's hard to even
walk in that store it's so crowed. That's it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shane:
I was in hopes that we could table this item to give this petitioner
a chance to answer all the questions and concerns that Mr.
Pieroecchi just outlined. If he is really serious about having a
first class operation, let him show it to us. Then we can make a
decision then.
Mr. McCann:
Are you making a tabling motion?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
20109
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Ms. Smiley, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on
Petition 2002-12-02-27, submitted by Nasret Kallabal, on behalf
of Livonia Beer & Wine Shoppe, requesting waiver use approval
to utilize an S.D.D. license in connection with an existing beer
and wine shop located on the Northeast comer of Joy and Hix
Roads in the Southeast ''/ of Section 31, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend Petition 2002-12-02-27
be tabled.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Smiley, McCann
NAYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Pieroecchi,
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Walsh
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails. Is there any more discussion?
We need a vole on the original motion then.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved, it was
#02-23-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on
Petition 2002-12-02-27, submitted by Nasret Kallabat, on behalf
of Livonia Beer & Wine Shoppe, requesting waiver use approval
to utilize an S.D.D. license in connection with an existing beer
and wine shop located on the northeast corner of Joy and Hix
Roads in the Southeast ''/ of Section 31, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-12-02-27 be denied for the following conditions:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively shoe that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 oflhe Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the City is currently well served with SDD licensed
establishments;
3. That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDD
licensed facilities in this area ofthe City; and
4. That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
20110
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Alanskas, Smiley, Piercecchi
NAYES:
Shane, McCann
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Walsh
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. The petitioner has len days to appeal the
decision to the City Council in writing. This concludes the Public
Hearing section of our agenda. We will now begin the
Miscellaneous Site Plans section of our agenda. Members of
the audience may speak in support or opposition to these items.
Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM#6 PETITION 2001-01-08-09 SPRING BROOK CONDOS
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2001-01-08-09 submitted by Ardmore Development, on behalf
of Springbrook Villas and Springbrook Estates, requesting
approval of the Master Deeds, bylaws, landscaping and
entrance marker for the condominium and site condominium
developments on property located at 19810 Farmington Road in
the West Ybf Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Farmington Road
between Seven Mile and Fargo. On October 23, 2002, the
petitioner received site plan approval to construct a mixed
condominium development on the old Ardmore property. As
part of the approval, it was conditioned: That detailed plans for
landscaping and identification signage, as well as the Master
Deeds for both the detached and attached condominium
developments, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
and City Council for their review and approval. In compliance
with this condition, the petitioner has submitted a Landscape
Plan, an application for an Entrance Marker and the Master
Deeds and bylaws for each condominium development. The
Landscape Plan shows that the main focus of the landscaping
would be installed along Farmington Road and adjacent to the
entrance into the development. These areas would consist of
meandering greenbelts planted with a variety of plant materials,
20111
including evergreen trees, deciduous trees and flowering plants.
In accordance with the Subdivision Control Ordinance, street
trees would be planted throughout both condominium
developments. A tightly placed row of spruce trees would be
planted along the north property line, screening this
development from the Woodlore Condominiums and its
carports. A note on the plan indicates that throughout the site,
where feasible, existing trees would be preserved. According to
the Master Deeds and bylaws that were submitted, the attach
condominium development on the north half of the site would be
called "Springbrook Villas Condominium." The site
condominiums developed on the south half would be called
"Springbrook Estates." The proposed Entrance Marker would
be located in the landscaped island of the divided entranceway.
The single sign would identify both condominium developments.
The graphic on the sign would be comprised of the wording
"Springbrook" and an icon illustrating what appears to be a twig
and leaves. Signage permitted for this site under Section
18.50E is one entranceway sign not to exceed 20 sq. ft. in sign
area. The proposed signage is for one entrance marker 20 sq.
ft. in sign area constructed out of brick with a slate cap.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated January 21, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of January 7, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? I believe we told him he
would not have to be here. For the audience, the petitioner was
not able to be here tonight. He did attend the study session
when we reviewed this petition. He answered our questions
regarding the type of plantings, and it is a conforming sign. Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved,
it was
#02-24-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of
the Master Deeds, bylaws, landscaping and entrance marker,
submitted by Ardmore Development, on behalf of Springbrook
Villas Condominiums and Springbrook Estates, in connection
20112
with Petifion 2001-01-08-09, which previously received site plan
approval by the City Council on October 23, 2002 (Council
Resolution No. 580-02), for the condominium and site
condominium developments on property located at 19810
Farmington Road in the West %of Section 3, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheets L-1 and L-2 both
dated January 3, 2003, as revised, prepared by Russell
Design, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except for the fact that the Serbian Spruce trees along the
north property line shall be spaced apart at least 15 feel on
center;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
4. That the Entrance Marker submitted by Signwork, as
received by the Planning Commission on December 20,
2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for;
7. That the Master Deeds and bylaws comply with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, except for the fact the following shall be
incorporated:
- That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be
brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of
brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less
than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story
dwellings;
20113
That the petitioner shall induce language in the Master
Deeds or separate recordable instruments wherein the
condominium association shall reimburse the City of
Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the
storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities, and
giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each
lot owners property prorata and place said charges on
their real estate lax bills in the event said charges are not
paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner)
within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of Livonia;
9. That the brick used in the construction of each
condominium unit shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no
excepfions; and
10. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds,
which shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for these condominium
developments.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, just one question. Mark, about the sign, which I brought
up, is that sign going to be just on the condo section or will it be
on the R-3 section too?
Mr. Taormina:
It will be on the R3 section too. The same standards apply for
oursubdivisions.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just want to point out that, as one commissioner, I appreciate
the fad that the petitioner wanted to put so many Siberian
Spruce trees along the north wall. But the way they were
spaced, they would have choked out within a year because they
were so close together. I think that spaced apart 15 feet is
much better because they grow so quickly. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. That's coming from our resident expert.
Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
20114
k 1=1,7 E3OIIIIIIIIIII119=k IY Ile]: DAD14fil SHe] 3 of1,R-10q yV/I*Mif
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-01-08-03 submitted by Tiseo Architects, on behalf of
Blockbuster Video, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a commercial building on property located
at 37609-37685 Five Mile Road in the Northeast %of Section
19.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Newburgh and Hix. The petitioner is requesting approval to
construct a stand-alone commercial building out in front of the
Village at New Five Plaza Shopping Center. The major tenant
of this commercial center is a Fanner Jack grocery store, which
occupies the westerly most unit. The proposed building would
sit out, more or less, in the middle of the centers existing
parking lot, just west of the main driveway off Five Mile Road. A
bank, along with a gas station located at the intersection of Five
Mile Road and Newburgh Road, already exist in front of the
center. The proposed building would be one-story in height and
5,036 square feet in size. It would be occupied by one tenant,
Blockbuster Video. An enclosed dumpster area would be
located next to the southeast corner of the building. Parking is
summarized as follows: They are required to have 606 spaces,
the site plan shows 511, so they are deficient by 95 parking
spaces. Therefore, they would require a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals. The new Landscape Plan shows
additional landscaping would be installed along the entire length
of the center's greenbelt frontage of Five Mile Road. A new
elongated landscaped parking island would be incorporated
within the center's parking lot just west of the proposed building.
The Elevation Plans show that the proposed building would be
constructed out of brick, with a cast stone base, on all four
sides. A six foot wide dryvit band would run along the top of the
building's storefronts (north elevation). A standing seam metal
parapet roof, that would encompass the entire roofline, would
screen the rooftop equipment.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 29, 2003, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. No further rightofmy
dedication is required. Water mains are available on-site and
on the south side of Five Mile Road. Sanitary sewers are
20115
available on the north side of Five Mile Road and near the
Northwest comer of the Farmer Jack store. We trust that this
will provide you with the information requested." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January
10, 2003, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a
commercial building on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 13,
2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building
on property located 37609 — 37685 Five Mile Road. The
proposal considers Blockbuster Video and the Coffee Shop as
one business, requiring 34 parking spaces. They are actually
two businesses requiring a total of 50 parking spaces, not
including employees for the Coffee Shop (+2 est). Taking into
account the above information, the parking deficit will be
approximately 113 spaces. We recommend the installation of
stop signs for east/west traffic in the parking lot where it crosses
the main driveway just south of Five Mile Road." The letter is
signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 23,
2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
January 7, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site has portions of
the lot that need double striping. The east lot needs repair or
repaving. The south access drive needs repair or repaving and
other areas on the north side require the same. (2) There is
outside storage on the west end of Farmer Jacks and over 15
plus dumpsters are positioned in the south access drive without
dumpster enclosures. The original approval stated all
dumpsters were to be in masonry enclosure matching the
building. There is also shelving stored outside at the southwest
comer of building B. (3) Some rear exterior doors need paint
and maintenance. The fence only dumpster enclosure at
Farmer Jack is in disrepair and has no gates. (4) There is no
evidence the landscaped areas, proposed and existing, are
irrigated. The landscaping plan references a gas station west of
the bank that is actually east of the bank. (5) Although parking
easements exist, site A (parcel C bank) has put signage up to
restrict parking to the bank only and taken at least 33 spaces
away from being used by parcel B or parcel A. These signs
should be removed permanently or the parking shortage will
increase. (6) The parking calculations are incorrect. This site
should be reviewed as one space to 125 square feet usable and
any restaurant with seating will require additional parking.
20116
Required parking without a restaurant is 618 spaces. Provided
is 511 spaces, a deficiency of 107 spaces. The space for the
'coffee house' as non -restaurant requires 11 spaces. As a
restaurant with 50 seats, it would require 27 to 30 spaces, an
increase of 16-19 spaces. The Petitioner needs to state the use
or come back to the Board if, in fact, it does become a
restaurant with seating. Cumentiy, without the proposed
restaurant seating, the Petition will require a parking variance of
107 spaces from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ben Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia. I'm here with
Mark Canvasser, who represents the properly management
company. If there are some questions I can't answer, I'm sure
that he'll be able to answer them. Let me tell you how we got
here. The reason we're here is because Damman Hardware at
Century Plaza across the street is requesting to expand their
space. The only space they have available is into the current
Blockbuster Video space. Blockbuster Video's lease is up in
June of this year. They have no other options in their lease. So
the landlord has decided to execute the expansion of Damman
Hardware into the existing Blockbuster Video space.
Blockbuster wants to stay on that comer. They have a good
base for customers there. They know the importance of it. So
that's why they approached my clients to see if they can do
something in the center. There is no vacant space available in
the center to accommodate a 5,000 square foot user. There are
several leases pending right now for some of the vacant spaces
that are there. So there isn't much of an option other than trying
to do an outlot on the front portion of this building. They are
willing to sign a ten year lease with two-year options. They are
willing to make a commitment to stay in that area. That is
important for them. The tenants that have been informed about
this have acted favorably to having this oullot-type building.
One of the changes, if you'll notice from the original submittal is
that we have taken out the proposed coffee shop. We have
also added additional landscaping. I'd like to clarify some of the
items that were brought up in Mr. Bishop's letter. The double
striping was a requirement that came in after the development
was constructed. We're more than willing to do the striping of
that lot at the cycling of the maintenance program on the
property. That would not be an issue. We cant speak for any
of the other parcels because we can only do work on our parcel,
which I believe is Parcel A. The other ones are not under our
201 17
ownership, nor under our jurisdiction, so we cannot go on those
properties. We will work with whomever to see that they would
help comply with this. The storage outside Fanner Jack's, we
will discuss that with the tenants. I know periodically they have
trailers that they just can't unload that day and they do drop
them once in a while. Then theyre unloaded, and then theyre
off site. We will do what we can to see that it is kept to a
minimum, if not reduced entirely. I was at the site Saturday. I
went around again after I received the letter. I did not see any
doors that needed maintenance on the back of this building. I
would be willing to meet with Mr. Bishop so he could show us
what he feels should be replaced or what has problems. We'll
gladly look into that, but most of them were freshly painted.
Some of them were recently repaired. The dumpsters is
another issue that we can't address oft our property. It is my
understanding that the dumpsters that are on the property were
in a sense grandfathered because they were not required when
the center was originally built some years ago. If need be, we
could probably do an enclosure around the Fanner Jack's which
is where the dumpsters are more or less visible from the parking
area. All the other dumpsters along the whole center on the
back are screened from the front, and there's a masonry wall in
the back that's six feet high screening it from the neighbors.
The landscaped areas will be irrigated. You'll notice that note
on the recent submittal. We will work with the City and request
that the bank do remove their "bank only" parking signs because
we do have cross -parking access easements for all three of
those parcels. And the parking issue, there is some
discrepancies with our numbers versus some of the other
computations, but that's something that can be worked out. I do
know that if this is approved, we do have to go before the ZBA
to get a variance on the parking spaces. I know that one of the
things that has been discussed is the value of outlol type
buildings. I believe there's a lot of positive examples of oullol
buildings. There's a lot right here in Livonia. The Newburgh
Plaza Center at Six Mile and Newburgh has a Big Boy's there.
It has the Charter One bank. That's a very positive introduction
to that center. Also, at the Livonia Mall, Bakers Square is
another very positive introduction of an outlot-type building. The
entertainment mall on Seven Mile and Haggerty has numerous
restaurants as outiots. So there's a lot of others. We do a lot of
shopping centers. We've got four under design, under
construction right now. Actually there's six. And all of them
have outots. From a planning standpoint, we prefer to do them
for multiple reasons. One is that the outlot buildings themselves
allow the parking lot to get a better utilization. It breaks up the
standard strip center where the majority of the parking is right in
front of the stores and then you have all the vacant parking
20118
spaces from the street back. This allows you to disperse the
parking throughout the center more equally. Also, from a visual
standpoint, rather than looking at one large mass of building,
these outlot buildings do help break up those masses so that
visually as you see the center, it doesn't give you this large
mass of the big box look to it. We're building one center right
now where the city planners are driving us to a five outlot center
with a major food store and other retail. So that is something
that is positive with the communities that are being developed. I
see that here to stay. Its more of a campus feel rather than a
strip shopping center. That's the basic intent of the oullots. I
know I spoke to a Mr. Walsh, who is not here tonight, about a
new submittal. I informed him that we have made some of the
changes. We have reduced it strictly to the video store and
added additional landscaping. He apologized that he couldn't
be here, but he told me if he could be here, he probably would
vole for that because of those changes. Again, if I can answer
any questions, I'm here for that.
Mr. Alanskas: So you're going to go from almost 6,400 to a 5,000 square foot
building because your original one at 6,378 induced the coffee
shop?
Mr. Tiseo:
That's correct. The coffee shop is gone.
Mr. Alanskas:
Now you wantonly 5,000 so the building would be smaller. Is
there a reason why you can't put your dumpster in the back of
the southerly property instead of having it behind your store?
Mr. Tiseo:
The logistics of laking the trash back behind the existing
shopping center, I think, would be too much to ask.
Mr. Alanskas:
The bank does it every day. The bank's dumpster is behind all
those buildings. I know because I take it out. I work there.
That's myjob. So it can be done.
Mr. Tiseo:
If that's a condition, that's fine. We found that most retailers
would like to have it right there.
Mr. Alanskas:
That way you wouldn't have an unsightly dumpster in the middle
of the parking lot. That's one thing I don't like.
Mr. Tiseo:
I prefer to move them away as well. If that's a condition, that
will be met.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm not against an outlot building, but I hale to see a dumpster in
the middle of a facility like that, so I'm pretty sure that can be
done.
20119
Mr. Tiseo:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
And you want to reduce it by 2,500 square feet?
Mr. Tiseo:
That's correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
What would be the height of the building?
Mr. Tiseo:
I believe its on the drawings.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to blocking some of the stores.
Mr. Tiseo:
The lop of the parapet is 21'-6".
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaPine:
I have a different view than you about outlots inside shopping
centers. When this shopping center was developed, if you left
an ouflot there that we knew was going to be developed at a
later date, that's one thing. But to come in now and say, 'We
want to put an outlot here," quite frankly, I dont like d. I think it
takes away from the character of the shopping center. How
many stores are empty in that shopping center at the present
time? Do you know?
Mr. Tiseo: I believe there are actually three vacant spaces. Two have
leases out right now.
Mr. LaPine: There's two out plus one vacancy. Okay. Have you looked at
any other location on this lot? For instance, if it was moved
down to the far end by Fanner Jack's?
Mr. Tiseo: Well, we did not look at that simply because if you notice the
depth of the center, there was more room in front of that ilaza
area rather than in front of Fanner Jack's.
Mr. LaPine: Even when you go out there and look at where it is now, the
depth of this whole parcel is quite shallow compared to most
shopping centers. When I went out there and looked at it, I saw
some city -owned land to the west. There are some tennis
courts there. I dont know what the City uses that land for or if
that land is available. If the City would be willing to sell it, you
could put the store over there. I don't know if that's available or
not. I understand it's not because at the time the shopping
center was developed, the homeowners wanted a buffer zone
between them and the shopping center. The tennis courts don't
look like they are used anymore. That's another option that can
20120
be looked at. Quite frankly, I just dont like outlots in the middle
of a shopping center. You're talking about Bakers Square. I
was here when Baker's Square was approved. I didn't approve
it. I voted against it because it's just the way I feel about that
type of operation. Where do you draw the line? Let's assume
another store comes in. Farmer Jack's comes up with
something, and they want to put an outlol on this end of the
shopping center. How can you say one can have it and the
other guy cant have it? If this was an outlot that was there,
that's one thing. We do have a lot of situations where there are
planned outlots. Millennium Park is a good example. There are
three or four lots over there that are outlots. We know
something is going to go on them, but we knew that at the time
we approved the zoning and the site plan. Here, we didn't know
that. 1, for one, am just opposed to it. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
againstthis petition?
Michael Lippitt, Landmark Commercial Real Estate, 32605 W. 12 Mile Road,
Suite 190, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. I'm the exclusive
real estate representative for Blockbuster Video and have been
for 15 years. Currently, we're operating four stores in the City of
Livonia. I'm sure you're aware of all of them, and theyve been
here for a long time. No other changes are really planned at
this point. The stores all do well and they're obviously
supported well by the neighborhoods and the demographics.
This particular store, as it was stated, is being forced out of the
Century Plaza. Blockbuster made a mistake. It's not my job,
but the corporation did not renew an option that they should
have renewed, and they lost the ability to stay another five
years. So they've been there close to 15 years now. Damman
is going to expand. So their choice at this point in time was to
either exit this part of the market and just not have a store there,
or to try and find a replacement. The store is a well supported
store. Its a high volume store. So they do want to keep the
store. And we did explore a variety of options around that
intersection. This seemed to be the only one that was viable,
both in terms of availability on the one side and also with
respect to whether Blockbuster Corporation would approve the
site. If you know about Blockbuster and everybody seems to,
they primarily only will look at outlots or endcaps. And there
were no other outlots or endcaps available at the intersection,
so we started working with Mr. Canvasser in terms of trying to
develop this outlot. They've been a good strong tenant and a
family-oriented tenant for not only Livonia but throughout the
United States. They don't carry porn like other video stores
20121
tend to thrive on. It's a family-oriented business. They would
like to stay. This is really the only opportunity that they will have
to stay at this intersection, so if you think it's something that is
worthwhile for the community and you can support it, that would
be great. If not, I'm afraid they would just have to work within
the three existing stores they have. Certainly demographics
could continue to support this store though, and they would like
to stay. I'd be happy to answer any questions about
Blockbuster.
Mr. Alanskas:
In your exisfing store, how many square feet do you have in that
store now?
Mr. Lippilt:
It's a 7,500 square fool store. The ironic part about it is that the
store is loo large right now for what we typically use.
Mr. Alanskas:
It is that big? It is 7,500 square feet?
Mr. Lippilt:
Yeah, back in those days, we were doing stores all the way up
to 10,000 square feel. Now
prototype is 5,000 square feet.
Actually, the store we're proposing,
as it turned out, was 5,030.
That's pretty much prototype. We're actually a little bit smaller
recently, but now with the advent of DVD, they need to may
dual formats in the stores, so 5,000 is the number.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Tiseo, I'm tom. I'm not sure about the parking deficiency. I
would assume that Farmer Jack's is aware of the proposal to
put the Blockbuster there?
Mr. Tiseo:
Yes, they are.
Mr. McCann:
They are supporting it even with the understanding that the
parking would create a deficiency?
Mr. Tiseo:
Yes, sir, they are.
Mr. McCann:
And the tenants have all been made aware of this proposal?
Mr. Tiseo:
I dont know about all of them. I know that Mr. Canvasser had
tried to contact some of them. But I know that specifically he did
speak to Farmer Jack.
Mr. McCann:
And Farmer Jack believes that this is not going to create a
parking problem?
Mr. Tiseo:
No, they dont. They think it will also be a plus.
20122
Mr. McCann: If you look at the northwest corner, you've got len spots going in
front. You've been able to add six additional spots to the west,
and that tenth spot is sticking kind of way out. I'd almost like to
see that changed to some type of green area because you've
got a lot of kids coming in and people coming around and
turning. A greenbelt in that area might help to soften the effect
of the building. That's my recommendation if it passes. I'll look
for a motion at this point.
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, itwas
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-01-08-03
submitted by Tiseo Architects, on behalf of Blockbuster Video,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
commercial building on property located at 37609-37685 Five
Mile Road in the Northeast %of Section 19, be denied for the
following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general
standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That additional commercial space is not necessary for this
center or the surrounding area;
3. That the layout of the building within an existing parking lot
would unduly tax and conflict with the established and
normal traffic flow of the area;
4. Based on the severe number of deficient parking spaces,
this site is unable to accommodate this type of expansion;
5. Allowing this type of development would be detrimental to
the aesthetic quality and appeal ofthe of the overall site;
6. That approving his satellite building would not only set a
undesirable precedent in the area but for the City as a
whole; and
7. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the
concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of
the City and its residents.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pieroecchi: I have some comments, Mr. Chairman.
20123
Mr. McCann:
Yes, Mr. Piercecchi.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I for one fully realized that satellite buildings do
exist within the confines of some of our centers. These
buildings we are told have the potential to breath new life into an
area. Perhaps and maybe, but one thing is certain: they have a
deleterious effect on the aesthetic well being of a center. This
site plan that has been shown here tonight has very little value.
And in addition, it runs counter to Section 19.06 of our Zoning
Ordinance in the areas of size and character, traffic flow and
safety within a complex, as well as density, parking deficiencies
and sound planning which induces dumpster locations. Not
only is it being suggested on a very shallow parcel, it is not a
Wonderland, Livonia Mall or even a Newburgh Plaza site in its
depth. It is very short. Thais why I question the wisdom of
approving this after -thought development. In addition and in
closing, it can also set an undesirable precedent in opening the
doors for other business groups who request satellite structures
out in front of their stores. This hodgepodge overpowering mix
is not in the best interest of our commercial well being.
Mr. McCann:
If there is no other discussion, will the secretary please call the
roll.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: La Pine, Shane, Pieroecchi
NAYES: Smiley, Alanskas, McCann
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Walsh
Mr. McCann,
Chairman, dedared the moon fails. Is there an altematwe
motion?
Mr. Alanskas:
I would recommend a tabling resolution until Mr. Walsh gets
back.
On a motion by Mr. Alanksas, seconded by Mr. Pieroecchi, and approved, it was
#02-25-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend Petition 2003-01-08-03 submitted by Tiseo
Architects, on behalf of Blockbuster Video, requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building
on property located at 37609-37685 Five Mile Road in the
Northeast''/.of Section 19, be tabled unfit the Regular Meeting
of February 25, 2003.
20124
Mr.
McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Its true that Mr. Walsh isn't here, but that's not the main reason
why I will vole for the tabling. Any time I think that people are
unsure of a particular development or project and want to look
at it again, I see no reason not to.
Mr.
McCann:
That's fair.
Mr.
LaPine:
I understand at the study session that Mr. Walsh indicated he
was opposed to it.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
He may be. We'll find out.
Mr.
La Pine:
Well, the petitioner tonight said he was for R.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Mr. Walsh hasn't voted. How can we really tell?
Mr.
McCann:
That's right.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Smiley, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYES: LaPine, Shane
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Walsh
Mr.
McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2003-01-08-04 CHURCHILL PLACE
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-01-08-04 submitted by Livonia Public Schools, on behalf
of Churchill Place Site Condominiums, requesting approval of
the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section
18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a site condominium development on property located
at 9210 Newburgh Road in the Southwest %at Section 32
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Newburgh between Joy
and Ann Arbor Trail. The petitioner is requesting approval to
20125
develop a two -unit site condominium development on the
subject property. Immediately adjacent, and to the east of this
property, is Churchill High School. According to the submitted
documentation, the proposed development would be called
"Churchill Place Condominiums." The home sites would be
developed through the Livonia Public School's Career/Technical
program. This program has already built a house on the south
half of the site. In order to be able to sell the house and develop
another house to the north, the property needs to be separated
in some way. The reason why this dividing cannot be achieved
through the lot split process is because the subject site has
already been split off from a larger parcel (Lot 745 of
Supervisors Livonia Plat No. 12). A single parcel can only be
divided a maximum of four limes. The ordinance specifies that
the lot area of a piece of property in a RUF District shall not be
less than a half acre in size. Both condominium lots would
conform to all requirements of an RUF zoning district. The
homesite with the existing house, labeled Unit 2 on the Site
Plan, would be 0.50 acres in size. The other, labeled Unit 1,
would be slightly larger at 0.58 acres. A copy of the Master
Deed and bylaws for this new development has been submitted
for review by the City. There is nothing in the documentation
that calls out the percentage of brick for the exterior of each
unit.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 3, 2003, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. No further right -of my
dedication is required. Water mains, sanitary sewers and storm
sewers are available to serve the site. City ordinances require
that site condominiums have rear yard storm drainage. As a
minimum, we would require the extension of a storm sewer with
an inlet located on the line between the units, located
approximately 25' from the east line of the development. The
rim elevation of this structure should be at approximately 676.0.
We are sending the petitioner's engineer a sketch showing this
storm line for his information. We trust that this will provide you
with the information requested." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 21, 2003, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct site
condominiums on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
20126
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated January 29, 2003, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the limited information
made available to us regarding this petition. Based upon the
information submitted, we have no recommendations regarding
this petition." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated January 20, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of January 17, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The rear building setback will actually be 54 feet not the 50
feet noted on the survey. (2) Article V of the Master Deed (page
6), Section 1 appears to have an inconsistency on the depth of
ownership. It is either 15 feet or 15 inches and should be
clarified. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
David L. Watson, Livonia Public Schools, 15125 Farmington Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48154. 1 think most of the information has already
been presented. This property was purchased two or three
years ago by the School District. There was an existing home
on that property that really, the only thing that could be done
with it is have it removed at that particular point in time. It was
not in the best of condition. Since then, the District has
constructed one home, as mentioned, on the south parcel. That
home has been built, inspected and is ready to be sold. We
have since postponed the sale of that until we can get all of
these particular legal issues out of the way, and we can present
the homeowner with clean documents regarding its sale. So
that house was completed a year ago this past June. Again,
we've been keeping it up and heating it, and we would propose
to build a house very similar to that next door. It would be of
approximately the same number of square feel, same basic
design. It would have to be turned a little bit on the lot, but it
would be similar to the ones we have built in other locations in
the City along Stark Road, which was our most recent
development. Currently, we're building a home on Joy Road
just south of Churchill High School and to the east of it. It land
of borders on its eastern boundary. The Career Center has
been building homes for a number of years. They are quality
homes, and we generally have absolutely no problem in selling
any of them once we put them on the market.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
20127
Mr. Alanskas:
The house that you just completed, what did it sell for?
Mr. Watson:
The most recent one that we sold over on Stark Road, I believe
it sold for right around $290,000.
Mr. Alanskas:
$290,000? Because I notice that most of the homes you build
have very little brick on them. There have a lot of siding.
Mr. Watson:
We use a beltline brick. We've always done it with a beltline
brick in the front portion of the home. That's the way we have
done these. One of the reasons, it gives students an
opportunity to, in a sense, experience a number of different
kinds of facades to homes. It allows them to not just deal with
brick all the way around, but allows them to bring siding to the
ground. We're trying to give kids an opportunity to experience a
number of different building techniques and ways of doing
things. So we go with decks, with finished basements at times.
We tend to put the brick in the front of the home, which is also
similar in this case to the other homes that are up and down the
street there.
Mr. Alanskas:
So it's not a monetary reason why you're putting so much siding
on the homes?
Mr. Watson:
Well, its not entirely a monetary reason, no. It is as much an
experience reason for the kids to use the different types of
materials on the homes.
Mr. Alanskas:
I would think people buying the home would want more brick
because it would be less maintenance.
Mr. Watson:
We've never had a problem selling any of the homes that we've
done, and we've always built them that way. Its vinyl siding so
it's basically maintenance -free anyway.
Mr. LaPine:
If you notice that in this motion, you have to have brick on all
four sides.
Mr. Watson:
It's not something that we've done before. I guess if it comes
down to that, we would have to do that. But it would not be
something that we generally have done in any of the homes
we've built, nor in the one that's next door. So you'd end up in a
sense with condominium homes that are now different from
each other.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm the one that asked that be in here. The only reason is
because any builder that comes in town, we request that they
have at least 65% brick if it's a two-story and 80% brick if it's a
20128
single story. So we're
just being consistent with what we've
done with anybody else who builds homes in the City of Livonia.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I may add that wainscot is something we rarely, rarely approve.
Thafs what you're talking about, 3.5 feel.
Mr. Watson:
I guess I'm not that certain exactly. In the front we've put up a
beltline of brick about two-thirds of the way up or half way up
and then with some type of vinyl siding above that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If you're going half way up, you're pushing the 65% that we like
on a two-story.
Mr. Watson:
We only build ranches.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Oh, you build ranches.
Mr. Watson:
We have only built ranches. Its a safety issue for the kids. We
don't want them working up that high, so we build ranches. Its
a big difference of falling from a single story roof than from a two
story roof. These are students that are 16-17 years old.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
This mofion just treats the school system as anybody else who
would be building a house on a site condo. It is 65% on a two-
story building, and a one-story building, 80%.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anything else?
Mr. Watson:
Mr. Roskelly has been assisfing us with the design.
William Roskelly,
Basney & Smith, 33177 Schoolcmft, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
I've been working along with the school for sites for their
program for years. I think it should be pointed out that the
house that has already been built has been permitted. All the
BOCA codes have been used. It's acceptable by the City of
Livonia. Now as you point out, when we work into
condominiums, then you certainly can place certain restnctions
as to how much back, how much siding, etc. But the only
reason this is a condominium is because of the size of the large
supervisor's plat, and the Plat Act that says you can only have
four splits. So, our condominium is only to circumvent the Plat
Act so we can gel a permit. Now in this case, we have the
restrictions in Exhibit A done by an attorney. Does that mean
we have to go back and change these and say Site One has to
have brick on 80%? 1, in fad, think in this specific case, you
should make an excepfion and allow us to proceed to build a
home similar to what's there now and let's not gel involved in
60%-80% brick. I implore you. It's not a condominium. It is a
20129
condominium but only because we have to circumvent the Plat
Act. Its a special case. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Again, we're ready for a motion.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. La Pine, twas
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-01-08-04
submitted by Livonia Public Schools, on behalf of Churchill
Place Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master
Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
site condominium development on property located at 9210
Newburgh Road in the Southwest''/.of Section 32, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, except for the fact the following shall be
incorporated:
That the first floor of the condominium unit, identified as
Unit 1 on the Site Plan, shall be brick or stone, on all
four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone if it is
a two-story unit shall not be less than 65% and not less
than 80% if it is a one-story dwelling;
2. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed or a separate recordable instrument wherein the
condominium association shall reimburse the City of
Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the
storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities, and
giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each
lot owners property prorata and place said charges on
their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are not
paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner)
within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of Livonia;
3. That the brick used in the construction of the condominium
unit shall be full face four -inch brick, no exceptions;
4. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 3 dated August 28, 2002
prepared by Basney & Smith, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
20130
5. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for; and
6. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit ancVor surety bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development.
Mr. McCann:
I'm asking to make a friendly amendment which would come
before the comments, and that is that I cant support it this way
because it just doesn't make sense to me. We're not talking
about a subdivision. We're not talking about a development.
We're talking about one home. We're building a home right next
to a home that's already been constructed. By making it 80%
brick on a one-story dwelling, it wouldn't match the home next
door, and it just doesn't make sense. This is a policy of the
Planning Commission and the Council. Its not part of our
ordinance to require that much brick.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Chairman, I would concur with that. I have the same
feeling.
Mr. McCann:
What I'm thinking is that if we fell the need, that maybe a
friendly amendment that 50% of the first floor one-story building
be brick around the four sides.
Mr. La Pine:
I'll support 50%.
Mr. Shane:
I'll support that.
Mr. McCann:
Would the maker of the motion agree to that amendment?
Mr. Piercecchi:
We're only a recommending body. We have two people in the
audience ...
Mr. McCann:
I understand that, Dan, but our recommendation to go to
Council is what I'm suggesting be amended.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'd prefer the Council to make this judgment on their own
because we generally insist ...
Mr. McCann:
All right.
20131
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'm just trying to follow procedures here. These have been our
unwritten rules. I realize that. It does conflict. But I don't think
we should have that prerogative to make changes. I think that
goes to the body that's in charge of us.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Well, then your motion stands, supported by Mr. LaPine.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It can be changed down the road, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann:
Will the secretary please call the roll on your motion?
Mr. LaPine:
Wait. Before we vote on it, if Dan's motion is denied, then we
go back and make a new motion, or can somebody make a new
motion now to amend the original motion to allow 50%?
Mr. McCann:
I guess we can if somebody wants to make a substitute motion.
I dont know whether we have to vote on this one first. I think
we have to vole on this one first.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
How about a straw vole then? Why go through all this? If
everybody wants the 50%, 1 mean I'm not going to fight it. I
don't think we should be the ones to do this, but it appears as
though I lost my support.
Mr. McCann:
Are you withdrawing your motion?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Bill wants to change it.
Mr. McCann:
I believe he does, but ....
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So there's no motion.
Mr. McCann:
There's no motion.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So we can start all over again, then.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Do we have a motion then?
On a motion by
Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved,
it was
#02-26-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-01-08-04
submitted by Livonia Public Schools, on behalf of Churchill
Place Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master
Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
site condominium development on property located at 9210
20132
Newburgh Road in the Southwest''/.of Section 32, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws comply with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, except for the fad the following shall be
incorporated:
That the first floor of the condominium unit, identified as
Unit 1 on the Site Plan, shall be brick or stone, on all
four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone shall
not be less than 50%;
That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed or a separate recordable instrument wherein the
condominium association shall reimburse the City of
Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the
storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities, and
giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each
lot owners property prorata and place said charges on
their real estate lax bills in the event said charges are not
paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner)
within thirty (30) days of billing forlhe City of Livonia;
3. That the brick used in the construction of the condominium
unit shall be full -face four inch brick, no exceptions;
4. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 3 dated August 28, 2002,
prepared by Basney & Smith, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
5. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for; and
6. That all required cash deposits, cerfified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the
motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted. It
will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resolution.
20133
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 831st Regular
Meeting held on February 11, 2003, was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. I would like to
thank the City Channel 8 volunteers. I'd also like to thank Council President Jack
Engebretson and Councilman Joe Taylor for silting through our meeting this
evering.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary