HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-07-1222385
MINUTES OF THE 9W PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 12, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 909"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
�G
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge
Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's 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 public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/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 2005-06-01-04 LEO SOAVE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-06-
01-04, submitted by Leo Soave Building Company requesting to
rezone properties at 31540, 31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road,
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Auburndale Avenue in the Southeast 114 of
Section 3 from RUF to R-1.
22386
Mr. Taormina presented a map shaving the property under petifion plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 13, 2005, 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, and the legal description is correct
as noted below. Additional right-of-way for Seven Mile Road will
have to be dedicated in conjunction with the subdivision. The
petitioner correctly indicates the ultimate right-0fmy width of
120 feet on his sketch. The approach to Seven Mile Road will
require Wayne County approval and detention will be required in
accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management
Ordinance." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. We also received an item of correspondence signed
by a number of residents, dated July 5, 2005, which reads as
follows: We, the residents of Auburndale and Gable Streets,
wish to address our concerns regarding the rezoning of the
property located on Seven Mile Road (31540,31560 and 31640
Seven Mile Road), from RUF to R-1 per Petition 2005-06-01-04.
We are well aware that as a city, Livonia wantsrneeds to expand
its tax base by increasing the number of single-family dwellings
so that it may continue to be a viable city in the future.
However, this can be a double-edged sword, eliminating the
various woodlands that make this city a desired place to live to
increase residential housing can extinguish the desire to live in
our city. With regards to the proposed petition, we are
concerned with what seems to be the crowding of 27 homes on
the small lot size of R-1. Will this be another crowded sub like
that of Mr. Soave's on Seven Mile (south side) adjacent to Joe's
Produce? To the observer's eye, the road in that sub looks
quite smaller than the existing road width that exists in current
housing north of Seven Mile Road. Per the said petition, it is
shoeing roads to be a minimum of sixty feet. We question the
safety of the surrounding homes with road width so narrow. We
doubt that such width would allow for cars to park on both sides
of the street, while also allowing cars to proceed through. Also,
if there were a true emergency, would a fire truck be able to
pass along the street with cars being parked on it? Would these
proposed homes have longer driveways to allow for parking
when residents entertain or will we feel the effects of the
overflow? Another concem regarding safety is that of the
additional traffic volume onto Seven Mile Road. We have heard
22387
rumblings of resurfacing west of Merriman, but will that include a
left and right hand tum lane into the development? With the
traffic flow just as it is currently, there have been tragic
happenings on Seven Mile, one in which took place not that
long ago just outside of Mr. Soave's current development south
of Seven Mile Road. Many current residents have come close
to being rear ended as we tum into our subdivision, either left or
right, as cars travel along above the posted speed limit. Has the
City of Livonia, or Mr. Soave's company, conducted a study of
the area to see just how this proposed development will impact
the existing area? If we go by the proposed petition, Mr. Soave
is planning for 27 homes on this acreage. Let's figure each
home will have at least two cars per home. That's additional
train volume of 54 cars. If we look forward, and the remaining
lots are sold and developed with the same density of 27
additional homes, we now have additional train of over 100
cars. Just how feasible is this development with the current
road? What type of plan is in place to accommodate storm
water run off! Are there safeguards for the existing residents on
Gable, Auburndale, and the existing lots on Seven Mile Road to
prevent any water runoff onto those properties? Should our
basements flood, this will be the first area we would point to as
a cause. If the rezoning is approved, what is planned for further
development of the remaining three lots when they become
available? Will there be any assurances by Mr. Soave to keep
the existing tree line to separate the newer housing from the
existing to serve as a privacy fence? Will there be some sort of
additional landscaping (such as a berm) to provide for further
privacy for both the new and existing residents? What
provisions are being made to accommodate the wildlife that
lives among us in that acreage? What styles of homes are
being proposed for this development? Will they be built similar
to the existing homes (1,300 - 1,400 square feet)? Will these be
ranches and cape cods? Or are we going to have homes that
overshadow ours (such as the sub south of Seven Mile Road)
and make ours less attractive when we try to sell them? Would
the petitioner be willing to adjust the proposed lot size from R-1
to I-39 This would allow for a larger lot to accommodate a
larger ranch style home, thus keeping with style of the area and
still be attractive to prospective buyers. As of today, there are
approximately 700 existing homes for sale in Livonia (per one of
the existing realtors in the area). There is new home
construction along Eight Mile Road (between Gill and
Newburgh), Gill Road (south of Eight Mile), and Farmington
Road (north of Five Mile and south of Eight). Havant we added
enough housing to increase the available tax base? We live in
22388
Livonia for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, the
attraction of Irving in a city that has the feel of living in the
country is what makes our community great! This is our home.
We pay our taxes, support our local businesses, and enjoy the
parks (what is left of them) and the various existing woodlands
in our community. It is a safe community, and we art; very
comfortable and happy here. Please help us keep that old style
community in place, and vote no on the rezoning as proposed
on Petition 2005-06-01-04 submitted by Leo Soave Building
Company." This letter contains 24 signatures of residents on
Auburndale and Gable Streets. Thal is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. As staled, we
would like to build 26 single-family homes on the 7-1/2 acre
piece of land. When you combine all the lots together ...over
10,000 square feel per lot. As you know, R-1 zoning is 7,200.
On this particular piece of property we have four lots that are
consistent with the R-1 zoning that are 7,200 square feel. Most
of them are from 7,500 to 16,000 square feel. As you know,
with R-1 zoning, there are four lots per acres. This will give us
three lots. We're only proposing 26 lots and this would be
consistent with the R2 zoning, minus probably another half of
lot. t meets the square
footage of R-2 zoning. The reason we
ask for the R-1
is because we are abutting commercial.
Typically, when you abut commercial, homes are harder to sell.
On this particular petition, 11 of these lots are abutting the
commercial side of this properly, which is OS, Parking and
Commercial. These homes would sell for about $300,000. I'll
answer your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
I have a question about what size homes are you thinking of
putting in there? Are you going ranch or two story?
Mr. Soave:
Mostly two stories. Ranches for some reason are not selling
good any more.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. And about what size of homes would they be?
Mr. Soave:
Probably about 2,000 square feel.
22389
Mr.
Morrow:
Mr. Soave, was any attempt made to acquire property to the
west of the particular site we're looking at tonight?
Mr.
Soave:
Yes, sir. I had a couple people attempt it. They said no so we
just stopped with it.
Mr.
Morrow:
You never got down to talking price or anything like that? No
prices offered?
Mr.
Soave:
Yeah, there was some prices thrown around but nothing that we
could actually consider a serious proposal.
Mr.
Morrow:
Is that the piece immediately to the west that has a kennel on it?
Mr.
Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
Morrow:
So apparently they're grandfathered in. I guess you can make a
case there's some kind of commercial next to you there?
Mr.
Soave:
Well, exactly. From what I've been told, they have to go every
year and gel their licensed renewed.
Mr.
Morrow:
What?
Mr.
Soave:
I'm sorry, sir?
Mr.
Morrow:
To gel what every year?
Mr.
Soave:
They have to get a license from the City of Livonia every year.
Mr.
Morrow:
To continue their business?
Mr.
Soave:
Yes, to continue their business.
Mr.
Morrow:
So even though it's RUF, they still need to have a license to
operate that kennel?
Mr.
Soave:
Correct.
Mr.
Morrow:
So I guess you could make the case you're almost surrounded
by R-1 and some form of business.
Mr.
Soave:
Right.
Mr.
Morrow:
That's all I have right now. Thank you.
22390
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Soave, you said that ranches now are hard to sell. These
would be mainly two story buildings. How high would these
homes be at two stones?
Mr.
Soave:
Okay, the ordinance in Livonia, a home cannot be more than
33-1/2 feel high.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Thirty-three?
Mr.
Soave:
Thirty-three and half feet high. Yes, sir.
Mr.
Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr.
Soave:
Most of them... we don't go that high at 30 feet.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Are you going to have elevations? Also high elevations?
Mr.
Soave:
No higher than 30 feet.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr.
LaPine:
Mr. Soave, the subdivision you're building west of this, how
many acres is that?
Mr.
Soave:
That's about 10 acres altogether.
Mr.
La Pine:
How many homes did you build?
Mr.
Soave:
Twenty.
Mr.
LaPine:
Twenty. So now you have 7.49 acres and you want to build 26
homes. Don't you think there's some discrepancy there?
Mr.
Soave:
Well, we're not abutting commercial.
Mr.
LaPine:
Pardon?
Mr.
Soave:
We're not abutting commercial.
Mr.
LaPine:
Mr. Soave, lel me ask you this. When you bought the property,
didn't you know there was commercial next door to you?
Mr.
Soave:
Yes, sir, I did.
Mr.
LaPine:
Why would you buy the property if you thought you may have a
problem getting R-1 in there knowing that its commercial?
22391
Now, I don't buy the argument that with commercial you cant
sell homes. My sub abuts commercial and all the houses sell.
They go up for sale and they sell real fast. So I dont think that's
really an argument.
Mr. Soave:
Well, Mr. LaPine, I'm not here to make an argument. I'm just
trying to state what I know, and what I know is, over there, we're
in the middle of the wooded area, over there we're surrounded
with commercial and we're surrounded by R-1.
Mr. LaPine:
Could it also be that you paid maybe too much for the property
and you have to build more houses to compensate for what you
paid for the property?
Mr. Soave:
That's another factor, yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Is it also true that the lot next to the kennel is up for sale? Is
that right?
Mr. Soave:
On the west side of the kennel? I don't see no sign there.
Mr. LaPine:
There was a 'for sale' sign up there last week when I out there
checking.
Mr. Soave:
The only one that's up for sale is the one adjoining the R-1 on
the other side.
Mr. La Pine:
That's what I'm saying.
Mr. Soave:
Yes, that'sforsale.
Mr. La Pine:
And you're nolinteresled in purchasingthat one?
Mr. Soave:
Not for the price it's listed at. We can't make the numbers work.
Mr. LaPine:
Also, is there a reason why even with the 26 homes, if I go
along with it, you couldn't make the road 60 feet wide? The lots
are all deep. Take five feet off of each side of the existing road.
It's a 50 foot road, you could go 5 feet off one side on the east
and 5 feet off the west and put a 60 foot road there and
eliminate the boulevard coming in off of Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Soave:
The boulevard is a good idea. That's a really good idea. As far
as the road, we have to build the road to City standards which is
31 feet from back of curb to back of curb. The road right-of-way
is 50 feet. That would help us because we have to deal with the
22392
underground detention from Wayne County. That would help us
put the underground retention in. That's why we're asking for
the 50 foot right -0f -way, but that doesn't mean in any way,
shape or form have to do with the width of the road.
Mr. La Pine:
These lots are 175, 175, 175, 185, 180, 145. They're all deep
lots. Five feel off of 175, still leaves a 170 foot lot. I mean, you
know, I've always been opposed to these 50 foot roads. The
ordinance says 60. When we can get the 60, 1 like to get the 60.
It was mentioned at the last meeting, how about going to 1-3
here instead of R-1? You can't do it?
Mr. Soave:
Typically, it is like a transitional type of a development. You go
from commercial to office to multiple and then to lower density
residential. Over here, you're going from commeroial to a low
density residential. You're kind of putting a big monkey on our
back that way. I mean, it's a hard thing to sell. In comparison, if
you compare this proposed development to say Golf Ridge, if
Golf Ridge was a 7-1/2 acre site to be putting 20 homes on that
site and you tell me which side would you want to be on - Golf
Ridge where it's at or Seven Mile and Merriman next to
commeroial? That's the only reason we're here applying for R
1.
Mr. La Pine:
Are you arguing that because you're next to the commeroial,
you're going to have a disadvantage of selling your homes?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr. La Pine:
And I go back to the argument, you bought the property knowing
that was there, and it's been there for years. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Good evening, Mr. Soave. I've been running through the
numbers loo, like I'm sure other people are, and I've spent quite
a bit of time on it. And you're right. The zoning right now, even
if the houses don't all comply with the R-2, collectively they
meet the density of an R-2.
Mr. Soave:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Which is 26 units. If we go a step further on that, and we take
the 7-1/2 and multiply it by three, we're looking at 23 units. If we
go to R-3, we're just taking away three units. I think part of your
problem, sir, is that you want to leave two houses existing in
there. One of those houses, I think, is 90 feet across the width.
22393
Is that correct? I think it is. But looking at just the numbers, if
you can do it that way, and we do it that way all the time. You
ge123 in there and that's whatthese petitioners requested.
Mr. Soave:
Mr. Piercecchi, if I can answer this in another way if I may. Can
I?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Soave:
Typically, when you develop a piece of land, you have two
choices. You put the money into the land and give them a
lesser home, or put the money into the home and give them a
smaller lot. I think people nowadays . we have a perfect
example with Willow Creek on Savoie south of Six Mile. Okay,
we've been working that development for seven years, sir. We
still have three or four homes siting there because those are
half acre lots. And half acre lots, nobody wants that burden of
maintaining that size of yard. Is that your answer? I dont know.
Did l answerthatgood enoughforyou?
Mr. Piercecchi:
The point I'm trying to make, sir, is that 26 to 23 doesn't seem
like a heck of a Id of cutback. That's only like 12 percent.
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But I don't know your business that well. I know the residemals
and densities and all those things because I sit on the Planning
Commission, but I don't know what its like to develop a project
out of my own pocket.
Mr. Soave:
Its more expensive than it used to. I can guarantee that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I imagine it is expensive, but hopefully the rewards are plentiful
too.
Mr. Soave:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to make sure I follow this thing about the road.
You're saying that the road would be it's normal width but the
right-of-way would be smaller because you're trying to
accommodate the storm water?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir. We build the road ...
Mr. Morrow:
The right-of-way is smaller but you're faced with managing your
storm water which means if you do it with a 50 foot road, you
22394
can do it underground to the sewer as opposed to putting some
sort of a pond out there.
Mr. Soave: That's 100 percent correct, Mr. Morrow. That's the way it is.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I had that in my mind.
Mr. Alanskas: Just one question. You're thinking on the R-1 that these homes
go for about $300,000. Is that coned?
Mr. Soave: Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas: So if you had R3, you'd probably have to sell those homes for
Mr. Taormina: No, we have not been able to evaluate it in time for this
evening's meeting.
Mr. Pieroecchi: With all these signatures, Gable qualifies for a protest, but
Auburndale does not. It has to be within 100 feet of the property
that is being petitioned, and Auburndale is west quite a bit. So, t
everybody else on Gable ... do you want to put it back on the
board again? From the OS to over about half going to my left,
all along that border there to probably that house just a little bit
left of R-1. Those are the houses that would qualify, plus
him much money?
Mr. Soave:
Probably about $340,000, $330,000, right around $335,000.
Mr. Alanskas:
And what you're saying is $340,000, $350,000 abutting
commercial would be very hard to sell?
Mr. Soave:
I dont think it would be a challenge on the west side of the
street, but on the east side of the proposed street, yes, sir, d
would be.
Mr. Alanskas:
I agree with you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Soave:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Shane:
A question for the staff. Mark, have you had a chance to
determine whether or not the petition that was filed would
constitute a ... what's the word?
Mr. Taormina:
Valid protest?
Mr. Shane:
Yeah, avalid protest?
Mr. Taormina: No, we have not been able to evaluate it in time for this
evening's meeting.
Mr. Pieroecchi: With all these signatures, Gable qualifies for a protest, but
Auburndale does not. It has to be within 100 feet of the property
that is being petitioned, and Auburndale is west quite a bit. So, t
everybody else on Gable ... do you want to put it back on the
board again? From the OS to over about half going to my left,
all along that border there to probably that house just a little bit
left of R-1. Those are the houses that would qualify, plus
22395
anything that goes down north and south there and, of course,
on the other side loo. I just wanted to let you know. Auburndale
is too far away to qualify as a protest.
Mr. Walsh:
My point of explanation for those of you who may not be familiar
with that. Everyone in the City has a night to say theyre for or
against this. But there are provisions that you can apply for a
valid protest that can increase the number of voles that are
required to pass an item by this body and by the Council. The
question Mr. Shane had for Mr. Taormina was, did we know if
we had a valid protest. We don't know that. We didn't have the
information in time to evaluate it. I just want to make sure
people understand, regardless of where you live, you do have
the opportunity to opine and we listen to that. But those closest
to the property are weighted when considering whether or not
we need a super majority to pass the resolution. So I just
wanted to be clear on that for everybody in the audience.
Mr. Taormina:
A point of clarification.
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
That's applicable only to the Council's direction.
Mr. Walsh:
I'm sorry. I just Teamed something. I thought it was for us as
well. It's for the Council. Thank you, Mark. I appreciate that.
Are there any more questions for the petitioner?
Ms. Smiley:
Actually, this is for Mark. Did you say this was consistent wth
the Future Land Use Plan?
Mr. Taormina:
The Future Land Use Plan does show this area as low density
residential and that corresponds to a density range of between
one to five dwelling units per acre. Several zoning
classifications conceivably can fit within that range of densities,
anything from RUF all the way to R-2 and R-1. This
development proposed at roughly three and a half dwelling units
per acre is consistenlwith the Future Land Use Plan.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, getting back to the 60 fool road aid the argument Mr.
Morrow presented about the retention pond. Do you see a
problem with that road being 60 feelwith the retention pond?
Mr. Taormina:
We haven't analyzed any of the engineering issues involving the
development of this properly yet. I bink what the developer has
done in this case is reserved what would be sufficient area for
22396
the underground piping. Again, the ordinance requires that the
nghlof-way be 60 feet. He is showing 50 feet. The additional
10 feet is possible without making the lots less than the
minimum area requirement of 7,200 square feet. I guess the
question is how much does that lake away from his ability to
engineer the storm system. Without knowing the details, I really
can't speculate as to whether or not that puts a difficult
constraint on this development. I would suspect that it wouldn't.
There's usually other means to handle that, but maybe he's
already done some of the preliminary engineering on this and
can shed more light on that.
Mr. Soave:
This site, as we said, is 7-1/2 acres. On a piece of property that
is serving five acres, we have to comply with the 100 -year
storm. Typically, from past experience, a 100 -year storm
requires 62,000 square feet of land area to accommodate. So if
we don't put this storm or detention pond underground, you can
imagine we've got pipes up and down this piece of properly just
to come up with 62,000 square feet of land area.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I just want to make a comment. I know Bill looks into everything
and he's very efficient. But we're getting into problems here.
These are site plan things to be determined just like the
boulevard. I designed a section where you can do that by the
way.
Mr. Soave:
Thankyou.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If you want 1. But I think the question tonight, Mr. Chairman, is
do we find that the rezoning of this property is in the best
interests of the City of Livonia and its citizens to go from RUF to
R-1.
Mr. Walsh:
Right you are, sir. Al this point, I'm going to open the public
hearing to the audience. The methodology would be, because
we have a great number of people here and we do want to hear
from everyone who wishes to speak, we'll limit folks to two
minutes on their presentation. We'll certainly entertain
questions and answer them if we are able. At the end when I
close the public hearing, Mr. Soave will have an opportunity to
speak again, and it will move to motion from the folks at this
table. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition?
Robert DeKold,
31670 Seven Mile Road. My wife and I own the kennel. So for
clarification, as far as the license, it is grandfathered in. We
22397
have been there since 1971. We are inspected by the City and
dog warden, and we apply for our license to Wayne County.
That's where we get our license from. A couple of questions. I
looked at the plan and I notice there is a 10 fool greenbelt going
all along the back of the proposed property. I don't know what
that means. So maybe someone would explain that to me.
Mr. Walsh:
A greenbelt would be a landscape area between the property
lines. It's a landscape area.
Mr. DeKold
Right now there are trees along that line.
Mr. Walsh:
Al this point, as Mr. Piercecchi had pointed out, we're
discussing the zoning issues.
Mr. DeKold:
Oh. You're not interested in that?
Mr. Walsh:
We don't have anything to respond to because we don't know
what he's planning. We don't have a site plan before us.
Mr. DeKold:
So my other question would have been, from Seven Mile Road
to the back of our house, there is no fencing. From the back of
the house to the back of the property line, there is fencing, a
three fool fence. You might want to consider safety. We have a
road that runs the length all the way back to the kennel, which
would be approximately 600 feet long. My other concem is the
road that abuts up to our property
at the end. I dont know how
that would be handled. Does it just end there?
Mr. Walsh:
According to the plan, it would end there. Again, that's a site
plan issue. Should this pass, we would address that issue
specifically at that
point. It has to be rezoned first, and then it
will come back to this body.
Mr. DeKold:
Okay. Thank you.
Donald Fsler,
19256 Auburndale. Good evening, Commissioners. In regards to
Mr. Pieroecohi, even though I may not have a valid claim with
that road, the way the road is proposed to end at that side line
of the remaining three lots, I figured I'd be proactive and speak
to the Commission nonetheless. My concems are just with the
volume of traffic on Seven Mile. This plan that is proposed, is
that with the intent of Seven Mile Road already being widened
with a right hand tum or a left hand tum lane, which would also
address the previous gentleman's question regarding the
greenbelt. If this is proposed with Seven Mile as it is now, and
22398
Seven Mile does get widened, that greenbelt will have to be
shortened. So I thank you for your time. I hope not to have to
come back here in another couple years to address you about
the remaining time lots. You know, I moved to Livonia due to
the woods behind our lot on Aubumdale and privacy and just
having the wildlife that's around that's not available anywhere
else. But seeing with all the current developments that are
going up and the Observer & Eccentric stating that our total
volume of residents has fallen, estimated to fall below the
100,000 citizen mark, I'm quite concerned that we're going to
have all this ongoing housing and not be able to fill it, nothing to
attract the citizens. Its going to become a concrete city. Thank
you.
Jay Douglas, 31659 Seven Mile Road. I just came here tonight to say I'm all for
this. If people want country, they should move out to the
country. I think it's a good move for the City of Livonia. That's
all I have to say.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else wishing to speak?
Ann Nizienski, 31451 Gable. My taxes go up every year, and I do abut
somewhat to the commercial property. So I don't think your
values go down because of it. We moved here from Sterling
Heights because we like the open areas, and I just hope that
Livonia doesn't become every little piece of land they build a
house on. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, ma'am. Good evening.
Susan Calfin, 31633 Gable. We did move out into the country, and we moved to
Livonia because it is a family place with trees. We have deep
concerns about the development. We also respect the concept
of private property and that people do have the nghl to develop,
to take down trees. Having said that, if this must be developed,
I would certainly urge that it be an R3 development. I realize
that the builder has bought property that abuts commercial, but
as I looked at the development map, the first time I saw it, it
appears to me that he really has two concems and I think he
has a way out in terms of one of those concems. His property
on the east side does abut the commercial development. On
the west side, it abuts kennel. And as I look at that road that is
being proposed, I wonder what's going to happen when the
Tamarack Kennel owners request their license and they now
have to deal with new homeowners who have moved in since
and who protest the kennel, and therefore make it difficult for
22399
him to con his kennel and maintain his properly. And I foresee
that the road very easily can be extended westward and do a
horseshoe loop and come right back out onto Seven Mile Road
after the remaining three lots have been sold. So the builder
has purchased property that has concerns on the east and west,
and I think has probably future plans in terms of the western
development. Having said that, again, my concem is that the
development should be reasonable, and R3 to me, I guess, is
reasonable. My other concem is that my husband and I are
original wners of our house on Gable, and the only time that
we have had any land of drainage problems, i.e., water in our
basement, was when sewers backed up when there was
development up on Merriman Road near Seven Mile Road. So I
have a real concern that I'm going to be bailing water again if
this development does go in. I would also urge the Commission
to consider some reassurances that the water and sewage
needs would be addressed adequately. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this? If there are others, I do encourage
you to come up to the other podium and be ready to speak.
Good evening.
Timothy McFadden, 31657 Gable. How ya doing? I'm probably the youngest
resident, as well as lived there the least amount. I work in
Livonia. I work at Quicken Loans. I love Livonia. I know a lot of
people live here and love the city. I moved into my house
because I enjoyed the trees, enjoyed the shade, and I believe
that R3 is definitely more reasonable than R1 for this area. If
nothing else, I'd rather have nothing, but R3 is definitely more
reasonable. Mr. Soave said that he would have trouble selling
the houses. He'd have more trouble selling R3 abutting up to
commercial. Well, if they build these gigantic house behind me,
we're going to have the same problem, you know? These
houses aren't like regular houses. They're not like the houses
around. They're gigantic buildings. Why punish us? We've
been here. Like these residents here, heyve been here a long
time. Why punish them just because this guy wants to make a
buck? That's all I got.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many square feet is your house, may I ask?
Mr. McFadden:
It's about 1,300 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you very much.
22400
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else wishing to speak? Ma'am, if you could
please come to the podium.
Joann Rundell, 31560 Seven Mile Road. I live in the middle house there. I'd like
to know what the size of the lots are in the back.
Mr. Walsh:
Those are R-1, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, the zoning for the Spring Valley Subdivision is R-1. I
believe most of the lots immediately adjacent to this, well,
several of the lots are 60 feel in width by I'm going to estimate
120 feet in depth. So they're right at about the minimum. You
can see a couple of these lots here where Gable makes a bend.
Some of these lots are a bit deeper. They're approximately 165
feet in depth.
Ms. Rundell:
Well, I don't know, but I would think that everybody would prefer
to have a subdivision in there rather than apartments like that's
on the other side of Merriman. Everybody could dear their
property out there. They wouldn't have all the trees anyways.
I
mean I've lived here for 28 years. I'm staying in Livonia.
But I
just think that its a lot of lost revenue to leave the lots silting
there like that. Livonia has a lot of city parks. Its not as though
we don't have green.
Nicholas Terms,
31553 Gable. My house is virtually right in the middle of the
proposed development. I've lived in my current residence for
about three, four years. My parents are in construction. We've
been involved in construction for about 15 years so I've been
fortunate to be on both sides of these kinds of arguments. First,
I want to say, obviously I would choose to have no major
development there, but the reality is, there will be development.
We know homes are going to continue to be built. I would
definitely support R3 over anything else. I don't think R7 or R-
2 is really the right thing to do. The density of the homes
definitely concerns me. Although you're not at this stage yet, if
you are going to be doing any construction, I think the critical
thing is to make sure that we try to maintain the lifestyle of the
people that are on Gable, a large easement, maintain trees if we
can, and try to limit our exposure to the new properties if they
are built. At least try to maintain what made it nice there. I
looked at about 200 homes before I chose the one I did, and I
chose it specifically because of the beautiful woodlands behind
the home, the wildlife and just the general scenery. Along with
some of my other concems, I've had some water problems
myself. I spent quite a bit of money and effort to resolve those.
22401
If homes do get built, I hope the City if going to spend a lot of
time to make sure the drainage and runoff and things like that
are taken care of and, even in some cases, improved if
possible. You know, certain concessions that might make it
easier for us to swallow a development of this nature would be
to provide maybe a larger easement than currently exists.
Maybe even provide an opportunity for the residents that are
there to expand our property behind our home. Maybe bury the
existing power lines. Things like that. So if you could at least
consider those kinds of options that might make it a little more
attractive to us if this kind of development is going to go on.
Thankyou.
Terry Sever, 34436 Beechwood, Farmington Hills, Michigan. I'm the current
listing agent for the parcel farthest west there, and I'd just like to
offer some thoughts and ideas since we're diligently looking to
find a buyer. They want to sell. We're working on some things.
First of all, if you counted up this now of homes or row of homes
across and tum it with the length of 820 feet, whatever it is,
you'd actually find that what's being proposed is more than
compatible with what's in the district. If you went across the
street, you would find that the developments behind the shorter
lots fronting Seven Mile are the R3. So the t-3 makes sense
on the south side of Seven Mile. The other thing is, if this
property had been developed back with that subdivision, looking
at that picture, what would have been developed there? You
would have ended up with probably the same type of lots, which
are 60 by 120. And I'm not really going to push for one or the
other, but it looks like the people I'm representing are going to
live with some of what you're going to discuss. And I apologize
because I always hate coming to a meeting when the residents
are on the other side. It's always a lot better when you're with
the residents. But think about this, if you went to 80 fool, that
means most of these people that abut it would end up with, the
people on the 80 fool would end up with two people abutting the
back of their lot because it would be overlapping 20 feet in
terms of what they'd be doing in length and width and square
footage. The other thing is, there is a definite difference in the
marketability of this property. I think Mr. Soave is right. That is,
he got doser to the office/commercial which makes it more
difficult. People say we don't want someone to overbuild next to
us. The fad of the matter is, if you go to an 80 foot lot, the price
point is going to have to be probably closer to $350,000. If
you're at 60 fool, 65, somewhere in there, and I think most of
the square footage was above the R2 minimum requirements.
Your price point is going to $300,000 to $310,000, maybe even
22402
$290,000. Its going to be far more compatible with the existing
neighborhood than if you end up with an 80 foot. The last thing,
I just want to remind everybody, is that its all getting developed
whether ifs 80 foot length or width. Its R7, 2 or 3. Ifs all
getting developed the same. Its just that the property lines will
change and the density will increase by two or three or four. So
I think you're right. A lot of discussion the residents have
probably will be site plan issues, and I think you can hold his
feet to the fire at that point in time, whether you drop a lot or add
or subtract an angle. I do think there's an advantage to the 50
foot in the end in terms of the overall development and being
able to create some type of buffer at the rear yards because
what you're giving up is 10 feel of the shoulder of the right-of-
way, which can be shifted to the buffer. So thank you very
much. I appreciate it. I know its a lough call, but I think you
really have to look at the difference in the product you're going
to end up with in terms of compatibility.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Sever. Good evening.
Robert Moreau, 31609 Gable. I live right where you're lallang about building a
subdivision. I disagree with him. If the homes were built 46
years ago on that property, they would be homes equivalent to
the rest of the subdivision. Every person on Gable and
Auburndale, if you asked them right now, they bought because
of the woods and the privacy that we have right now. You're
talking about building these $300,000, $400,000 homes where
ours aren't even equivalent to that. Its going to be an eyesore, I
think. I just don't agree with how this is going down right now.
So thats my point.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak?
Ms. Janet Douglas, 31659 Seven Mile Road. I live directly across from the
proposed area. I wanted to just say that I am in favor of this
rezoning project, the reason being is because the entire
dynamics of the Seven Mile project is going to change our area.
I love Livonia loo, and we're trying to stay in Livonia as well. I
grew up on the east side as one of the last speakers had
mentioned, and I came out here for the same reason. I love it,
and I don't see that would harm in any way the Seven Mile
Road project. Like I said, it will change the dynamics of the
area, and residential properly tax is one of the largest sources
of revenue for the City of Livonia. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a question for Mark Taormina, if I could.
22403
Mr. Walsh: Sure. We're going to interrupt just for a moment and let Mr.
Alanskas ask a question.
Mr. Alanskas: Mark, could you explain to us and the audience what the Seven
Mile project is going to be?
Mr. Taormina: It's a road widening project. As you know, right now the cross
section of much of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and
Merriman is only four lanes. I believe the County has scheduled
for next year the widening project that would include the addition
of the left tum center lane for all the area that presently does not
have that. It's a continuation of the same improvements that
were made to Seven Mile Road extending to Middlebelt Road
last year or the previous year.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak before
we close the public hearing? Seeing no one coming forward,
I'm going to close the public hearing at this point. Mr. Soave,
you have the opportunity to speak last and then we will proceed
to a motion.
Mr. Soave:
Thank you very much. There's been a couple comments
regarding the woods. Typically, we would just scrub the whole
area, but what we normally do and what we're going to do in this
case is within five feet of the property line, we're going to save
all the trees. We don't touch those trees. As far as the storm, if
we shed one once of water, one drop of water on the adjoining
property owners, the City would not let us put one fooling in the
ground on that property. Also, there's been some questions as
far as R-3. Okay, R4 zoning is 90 x 130. Ninety by 130 would
give us 11,700 square feel. If we go R-3 on this project with the
depth of the lots, we're talking about 13,500 square feet. To us,
thalwould be a loser. We could noldo it.
Ms. Smiley:
If you went R-3, what size house would you put on a lot like
that? Square footage I'm talking. You're talking you might be
around 2,000 in the R1. If you went to R-3, what size house
would you put on that?
Mr. Soave:
We would have to go with a bigger home just to justify the
investment.
Ms. Smiley:
So itwould a lot bigger home on the lot?
22404
Mr. Soave:
Yes, ma'am. It would be a much bigger home for us to get a
return on our investment.
Mr. La Pine:
You say that the commercial property to the east is a detriment
to you. Isn't it a detriment to the people who are going to buy
these houses on the west side that will abut a kennel? Is that a
detriment to selling those homes?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir. That would be. This is a different piece of property. It's
true what you're saying, Mr. LaPine. I agree with R.
Mr. Piercecchi:
To answer Mrs. Smiley's question here, if an R-1 lot was just at
the minimum dimensions, 60 x 120, the footprint would be 1,800
square feet. To go to R2, which is 70 x 120, you can have a
footprint of 2,100 square feel. And R3, which is 80 x 120, you
can have a footprint of 2,400.
Ms. Smiley:
Twenty-four hundred.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yeah. That's the footprint. Could I have the floor please? Mr.
Soave, we see a lot of people are really concerned here and so
are some of us on the Planning Commission as you recall from
our study meeting.
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That was quite a Donnebrook loo, wasn't it? You think you
could go back and rethink this project and pass a tabling mofion
here and give you another chance to look at an R-3?
Mr. Soave:
Mr. Piercecchi, I've known you for a long time and I respect
everything you say. You're like a father to everybody over here.
But if it was R3, I'd be out of the picture. I'd be selling my
property right now.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Soave, I presume this is a contingency sale?
Mr. Soave:
No, sir, we've own the piece that's adjoining the commercial
piece for about five or six years I would say. And the other two
are confingencies. Yes, sir.
Mr. La Pine:
Leo, let's assume for a minute that you're successful in buying
the other three parcels to the west. Would you still be wanting
R-1 through that whole parcel, or could you at that point develop
this as an R-3?
22405
Mr. Soave:
Yes. Hopefully. I'm from the same school you are, and I would
go along with that. That would be like a transitional type of
zoning, to go from R-1 to R-3, but that would make no sense to
do that on this particular piece of property when you have to
contend with what Mr. Pieroecchi said. That's going to be a
hard sale now; it's going to be hard to sell five years from now.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner? Thank you, Mr.
Soave.
Mr. Saove:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, the public hearing has been dosed. Thank you.
Mr. Sever:
I just wanted to ...
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, the public hearing has been closed. A motion is in order. A
second call for a motion.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm going to give an approving resolution, and I'm gong to say
why. If we were dealing with a different person that builds
homes in our city, I would say that this may not work, but Mr.
Soave has always worked with people that live in the
surrounding area. He has always worked with the city, and I'm
sure he'll do the same thing on this piece of properly, so I'm
going to give an approving resolution.
On a motion by
Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#07-74-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-06-01-04,
submitted by Leo Soave Building Company, requesting to
rezone properties at 31540, 31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road,
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Auburndale Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 3 from RUF to R-1, be approved for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot
sizes which are consistent with the lots in the immediately
adjacent subdivision to the north;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in
the area;
22406
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single
residential development similar in density to what exists in
the neighboring area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of low density
residential land use in the general area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an existing zoning district occurring on
adjacent properly to the north.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: I intend to vole against this proposal because I think that he's
asking to put loo much on that property in the number of homes.
I think an R-3 is more proper for the area. I don't buy the
argument that just because it abuts the lei, we should go along
with a density of R1. It just so happens that these lots are large
enough, the property is large enough to accommodate a larger
type of a home on these lots. Secondly, the owner bought the
properly knowing that he had a problem with the commercial on
the east side. That's not our problem. Our problem is to put in
there what we think is the right zoning for that area. My biggest
concern at this point is that the other three lots to the west are
eventually going to be sold, and then we're going to have
another R-1 zoning in there because we already established
that criteria if we pass this resolution that is on the table right
now. As far as I'm concerned, eventually those property owners
probably will sell their property, and I take the position that R-3,
because he's building some nice homes up the street, will sell
just as well here as any other city. And this argument people
tell me that I don't want these big homes in that area because it
degrades my house, that doesn't hold water. West of Gill Road
there are $500,000 homes and I live in a $300,000. It helps my
home. It increases the value of my home. And also the other
argument that people say, we bought these homes because we
wanted the wooded area. We all want wooded area, but the
man has the right to use that properly. But in my opinion, to use
it as an R-3 would be in the best interests of the residents and in
the best interests of the city. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: I'm going to support the motion to approve, and I want to tell you
why. Several things came out at this public hearing. If Mr.
Soave came in trying to put in R1 surrounded by R-3, I would
be diametrically opposed to it. But he's coming in where we've
22407
established commercial on the right, quasi -commercial on the
west side and surrounded in the other area by R-1. What we're
asking here is spot zoning in reverse. We're asking to put an R-
3 among the zonings I have just talked about. If Mr. Piercecchi
is correct, and I don't doubt his figures because he's an
engineer and he works very hard. We're talking about three
units. Three units to gel a piece of property developed by a
reputable builder that will do everything under site plan to make
a desirable place to live and to dovetail with the neighbors and
address all the concems here tonight through the site plan
approval, the water through engineering, things of this nature.
So the bottom line with me is for three units, I would rather see
this property developed whether or not its for tax base or
whatever. It's a private piece of property. He's established a
good reputation, and I think I've said enough. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I am also going to vole negative on this motion, Mr. Chairman,
because I'm really not wedy concerned about developing this
properly at this time and place. If it doesn't gel developed now,
it will ultimately be developed along with the other three,
hopefully, westerly properties to a more appropriate zoning
classification.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Pieroecchi. Are there any other comments
before we call the roll? Seeing none. would the secretary
please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, Shane, Morav, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES:
La Pine, Pieroecchi
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2005-06-01-05 MARIO TARTAGLIA
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-06-
01-05, submitted by Mario Tartaglia requesting to rezone
property at 37290 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of
Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 from C-1 to C-2.
22408
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated June 10, 2005, 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, and the legal description is cemect.
No additional right-of-way is required. The drive approach to
Six Mile Road will require Wayne County approval and on-site
detention will be required in accordance with the Wayne County
Stomp Water Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff before we go to the
petitioner?
Ms. Smiley: Did you say that Kinko's is C-2?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. The Kinko's property is located at the northeast
comer of Newburgh and Six Mile.
Ms. Smiley: Okay, and what is their setback?
Mr. Taormina: Kinko's is set back exactly 60 feet from the right-of-way of Six
Mile Road.
Ms. Smiley: And thafs what C-2 is?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, that is the minimum setback for a C-2 zone as opposed to
C-1, which is 75 feel.
Ms. Smiley:
Thankyou.
Mr. Shane:
Mark, with respect to the bank on the east side, thafs also C-1
is it not?
Mr. Taormina:
Thafs correct.
Mr.Shane: That setback then is not 75 feel.
22409
Mr. Taormina:
It is not, and that building is nonconforming with respect to
lodays setback standards. I'm not sure what the history of that
is. In all likelihood, it would be the result of a variance being
granted for that structure.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, sir.
F. Matthew Ray, Architect, 3210 Coolidge, Berkley, Michigan 48072. Hi. I'm the
architect for Mario Tartaglia.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Ray:
Yes. I have with me here, Mario Tartaglia and his son, Nino.
Mr. Walsh:
Very good.
Mr. Ray:
Mario has informed me that he has owned this property for over
40 years.
Mr. Alanskas:
Forty years?
Mr. Ray:
Yes. I've worked with Mano in the past on several
developments. He keeps his projects. He wants to do them
correctly and within the requests of the City. He wants to do it
right, and therefore we requested a G2 zoning in order that he
can open up the tenants, the tenants that are available in the C-
2
2 zoning as well as the setback consideration. He feels he
needs this in order for this project to be successful. If you have
any other questions on the site plan, I'd be glad to answer them
and respectfully request your recommendation for approval.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Sir, part of the problem is because of the setback of the bank.
You're saying that the building going back 75 feel will be more
visible? It will be less visible. But sir, this issue here about
going from G7 to G2 is, in my opinion, not a setback problem.
It's a usage problem. You can always go to the ZBA for a
variance. But the plan that we got is 72 feel. If you were to gel
in line with the Kinko, you'd have to come out to 60 feet. I don't
know what your problem is. If its G7, you can gel that changed
from the Zoning Board for usage to be able to bring it up to 60
feet. I would think Chats what you would want to be in line with
Kinko. You want to be 15 feel north of Kinko. I don't
understand that.
22410
Mr. Ray: No, we don't.
Mr. Pieroecchi: But it's a usage problem in my opinion. This is not a setback
problem. If we allow C-2 in there, we can gel all kinds of things
that we don't want. We could gel self -storage. We could gel
Harley Davidson repair shops. We could get big cleaning
establishments. We don't think that's appropriate there, and we
have adequate amounts of those C -1's right now. We have
adequate.
Mr. Walsh: Anything else, Mr. Pieroecchi?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
No, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
I know it's probably going to be a spec building. Do you have
any tenants you're entertaining now? Any particular uses that
you're striving for to give us a little insight.
Mr. Ray:
Yes, they are currently negotiating with retail -type tenants. I
cant say who they are, but ...
Mr. Morrow:
No, no. Ijust ...
Mr. Ray.
The intent is to build a retail ...
Mr. Morrow:
I'm not trying to tell you to be specific but just an idea. Are we
talking restaurant or are we talking some sort of print shops or
are we talking retail?
Mr. Ray:
Retail, possibly a restaurant.
Mr. Shane:
Sir, are you having difficulty finding tenants because it's C-1?
Mr. Ray:
That's hard to say at this point. I mean there's a broker who is
trying to bring tenants to the table, but there's not a solid
commitmenlyel.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. I'm just trying to determine which one of these is most
difficult for you, the setback or the fact that C-1 is more
restrictive.
Mr. Ray:
C-1 is more restrictive. The use would probably be important to
the rezoning of the parcel than the setback; however...
Mr. Shane:
That's what I was trying to get at.
22411
Mr. Ray:
Without the setback, it makes it harder to lease. So they go
hand in hand.
Mr. Alanskas:
Lel me, if I may, rephrase Mr. Shane's question. Have you tried
to gel C-1 tenants in the building that you want to put up?
Mr. Ray:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
To no avail? You couldn't get anybody?
Mr. Ray:
Well, it's an ongoing process.
Mr. Alanskas:
Pardon me?
Mr. Ray:
Its an ongoing process right now.
Mr. Alanskas:
But you have tried to gel G7, and you have had prospects to go
in there as C-1?
Mr. Ray:
Yes.
Mr. LaPire:
I guess you could make an argument here like someone did in
the last case. You've got C-2 to the east, C-2 to the west, C-2
to the south, with one parcel here the man is asking to go C-2.
Maybe it makes sense to go C-2 there. I mean if you're talking
about surrounded by another zoning, its surrounded by C-2
basically. Although I'm not in favor of it. Believe me, I don't
want C-2, but it's an argument you can make.
Mr. Shane:
I have a question for Mark. The Kinkcs, would that have been
permitted in the C-1?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Mr. Chair, if I may ask a question of the petitioner.
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Is it possible or can you indicate this evening if you're
negotiating with a restaurant that would fall under the full service
category as opposed to the limited service category, i.e. it would
have more than 30 seats?
Mr. Ray:
I'm not aware of any negotiations with a restaurant at the
moment.
Mr. Taormina:
Okay. Is there any desire to bring in a Class C licensed
establishment to the premises? Class C licensed
22412
establishments means an establishment that serves beer and
wine on the premises - liquor sales for consumption on the
premises.
Mr. Ray: I'm not aware of any right now.
Mr. Walsh: I want to be dear with you. My read of the plan is that you want
a 60 -fool setback. You're going to have an awning or
something? You ward a 60 -foot setback from the road is what
you're looking at according to the plans.
Mr. Ray: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: You want to be lined up with Kinkos?
Mr. Ray: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: Right. I just wanted to be dear on that. That was my read
originally.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Can you not just get a use variance here from the Zoning Board
of Appeals?
Mr. Walsh: He can apply for that if it doesn't pass here.
Mr. Pieroecchi: That right. That's all you have to do.
Mr. Taormina: I think one of the questions the Planning Commissioners need
to answer this evening is whether or not this zoning
classification is compatible and in harmony with the surrounding
zoning dassifications. We have C-2 immediately to the west as
well to the east. It is true that the C-2 district regulations would
allow for expanded uses for this properly; however, as it was
indicated, it's also for the purpose of allowing this building to be
compatible in terms of its placement on the property with the
building immediately to the west. I'm not sure that he would
have a strong argument before the Zoning Board of Appeals
with respect to practical difficulty or hardship in order to succeed
in getting the variance granted. So Ijust wanted to point that
out.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Pieroecchi: We won't know that until he makes an approach.
22413
Mr. Alanskas: I was just wondering. You said that the petitioner has owned
the property for 40 years.
Mr. Ray:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Has he in the last 30 years before now thought of putting the
same type of building up with the C-1?
Mr. Ray:
What type of building?
Mr. Alanskas:
I said, has he thought before just now to put up a building on
that properly in the last 40 years?
Mr. Ray:
No. It's the first attempt.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm just trying to gamer some information on which to vole on.
Does your dient now have any type of existing commercial type
of establishments or is this his first venture?
Mr. Ray:
Oh, no. He has several.
Mr. Morrow :
Oh. He does?
Mr. Ray:
Yes. Westbrook Plaza in Canton is one of them and the Canton
Center.
Mr. Morrow:
What types oftenants does he have in these establishments?
Mr. Ray:
There is a CVS Pharmacy. There's a one-hour Martinizing, a
salon, a video store.
Mr. Morrow:
So would it be safe to say these are the type of businesses he's
trying to attract?
Mr. Ray:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Does he have any experience with restaurants in any of his
current developments?
Mr. Ray:
Little Caesar's and the Great Wall, a Chinese restaurant. Is that
in Troy?
Mr. Morrow:
So as Mr. Alanskas said, 40 years is a nice round number to
hang onto properly. Apparently he does have some expertise in
development, although I haven't had the opportunity to site
check his other developments to see what type of a landlord he
22414
is, what type of care and upkeep he keeps with his places, but I
guess it's a little late for that now.
Mr. Walsh:
I'm gang to open the floor to the public. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Are
you one of the owners?
Nino Tartaglia,
783 Westbrook Drive, South Lyon, Michigan. Yes. I am his son.
Mr. Walsh:
Can you hold on for a moment. I'm going to officially close the
public hearing since there is nobody here. I'm ready now.
Mr. Tartaglia:
I would just like to clarify some things for you. The Westbrook
Plaza in Canton, as far as what type of landlord we are.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, I can't hear you. Can you speak into the microphone?
Mr. Tartaglia:
As far as what type of landlord we are, he has won
beauUficafion awards by the Chamber of Commerce in Canton.
Just to also let you know, yes, we would probably be looking at
attmcting a mixed usage retail such as that development.
Currently, early on in the stages, we have nothing signed. We
have potenfials through a broker. That process has just begun.
We would like to attract your sub shops, your cleaners, maybe
pizza places, coffee shops, Starbucks, Caribou. There is also a
potential Men's Warehouse but nothing has been signed. But
that's the type of usage we'd be looking at and not looking at
any liquor services of whatnot.
Mr. Morrow:
In your architectural design, I think I saw in the illustrafion, right
up next to the FedEx Kinkos, you were trying to kind of dovetail
that particular architecture with that particular building or will it
be something entirely different?
Mr. Tartaglia:
No, it's dovetailed, same type of brick scheme and material.
Mr. Morrow:
Will it look like kind of a confinuation of the building that there's
now?
Mr. Tartaglia:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Even though it's two separate parcels.
Mr. Tartaglia:
Yes. Not only that, it actually complements because the Kinko's
building is flat and then we're confinuing that and you have
some elevations. And the bank next door is a two story building
22415
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pieroecchi: This is a motion to go from C-1 to C-2?
Mr. Walsh: That's correct.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I can't believe that there's support for a motion on that. To start
it off as a setback problem and it is not a setback problem. It is
a usage problem. We've been lucky so far, and we're just
putting our feet to the fire by getfing another G2 business in
there. When I hear this flexibility sluff, and that's what started
this ballgame, itscaresme. Thankyou.
that's flat, so it even complements the grade and the scheme of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm pleased to hear that you won some awards for your
housekeeping and your presentation to the city.
Mr. Tartaglia:
Yes, and that's our intent.
Mr. Walsh:
Unless there are any other questions, a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, ilwas
#07-75-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-06-01-05,
submitted by Mano Tartaglia, requesting to rezone property
at
37290 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile
Road
between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 from C-1 to C-2, be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
existing zoning on other properties in the vicinity of the Six
Mile Road and Newburgh Road intersection;
2. That the proposed change of zoning would constitute an
expansion of an existing adjacenlzoning district; and
3. That the proposed change of zoning will permit the
development of the subject properly in a manner that will
be complementary to and more consistent with the existing
developments on the adjacent properties.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pieroecchi: This is a motion to go from C-1 to C-2?
Mr. Walsh: That's correct.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I can't believe that there's support for a motion on that. To start
it off as a setback problem and it is not a setback problem. It is
a usage problem. We've been lucky so far, and we're just
putting our feet to the fire by getfing another G2 business in
there. When I hear this flexibility sluff, and that's what started
this ballgame, itscaresme. Thankyou.
22416
Mr. Walsh: Any other comments from the commissioners? Would the
secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Smiley, Morrow, Alanskas, Laloine, Shane, Walsh
NAYES:
Pieroecchi
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2005-05-03-01 LARRYSTANCHINA
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
05-03-01,
00505-03-01, submitted by Larry Stanchina requesting the vacating
of a 12 foot easement on the west side and a portion of the 12
foot easement on the north side of property at 38896 Kingsbury,
located on the north side of Kingsbury Avenue just west of
Knolson Avenue in the Southwest %of Section 18, in order to
construct a detached garage
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first letter is
from the petitioner, dated May 1, 2005, which reads as follows:
"1 am requesting the removal of the easement on the west side
of the above property, Lot #196. Also, 1 am requesting a partial
release of easement (approximately six feet) on the north side
of the property. 1 have received a partial release of easement
from Detroit Edison per the attached letter. The reason for this
request is to allow me to build a garage on said property." The
letter is signed by Larry Stanchina. The next letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated June 13, 2005, 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 additional right-of-way is
required and the legal description is correct. Please see my
attached letter to City Council of May 9, 2005." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The reference
letter to the City Council reads as follows: 'We are in receipt of
22417
Mr. Stanchina's letter of May 1, 2005. There are no City utilities
in the two easements on Lot 196 except for a sanitary sewer
which occupies the easterly 20 feet of the northerly easement.
We have no objection to the vacation of the westerly easement
or the westerly 50 feet of the northerly easement. This would
leave an easement of 40.58 feet to maintain the sanitary sewer.
Mr. Stanchina would also have to insure that he does not cause
a drainage problem by constructing his garage. If approved the
legal description follows." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner herethis evening? Good evening, sir.
Larry Stanchina,
38896 Kingsbury, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the description thus far?
Mr. Stanchina:
No.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
The wood gazebo that you have there. What is the size of the
wood gazebo?
Mr. Stanchina:
About 10 by 10.
Mr. Alanskas:
Now it says the wood shed is silting on concrete?
Mr. Stanchina:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
What is the flooding of the gazebo sifting on?
Mr. Stanchina:
That is raised. It's silting on two cement posts and it's raised
above the ground.
Mr. Alanskas:
On cement?
Mr. Stanchina:
Well, there's cement pillars but there's not cement underneath
R. Part of it is...
Mr. Alanskas:
Like a deck would be?
Mr. Stanchina:
Correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
When you put that up, was a permit issued?
Mr. Stanchina:
I did not put that up, sir. It was there when I bought the house.
Mr. Alanskas:
All dight. Thank you.
22418
Mr. Walsh: Are there any others questions? This is a public hearing and I
need b go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one
in the audience coming forward and assuming the petitioner has
nothing else to add, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#07-76-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-05-03-01,
submitted by Larry Stanchina requesting the vacating of a 12
foot easement on the west side and a portion of the 12 foot
easement on the north side of properly at 38896 Kingsbury,
located on the north side of Kingsbury Avenue just west of
Knolson Avenue in the Southwest %of Section 18, in order to
construct a detached garage, be approved to vacate the 12 fool
easement on the west side and the southerly 6 feet of the
westerly 50 feet of the 12 foot easement on the north side of the
subject property, as specified by the Engineering Division in
their letter dated May 9, 2005, for the following reasons:
1. That the easement area proposed to be vacated can be
more advantageously utilized by the property owner if
unencumbered by the easements;
2. That the Engineering Division has no objection to the
vacating of the specified easement area; and
3. That the petitioner has received a partial release of
easement rights from the Detroit Edison Company in
regard to the subject easement area.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any comments or questions? Seeing none, would the
secretary please call the roll?
A rol call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, LaPine, Piercecohi, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYES: Alanskas
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
22419
Y1=1A43 =:J =k IY I[e] 7 L'ADA4rba*f Y�*L1111 =11: LIMN=[?
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
05-03-02,
00505-03-02, submitted by Dale K. Hughes requesting the vacating
of a portion of a utility easement on the west side of property
located at 18571 Hillcrest Avenue between Clarita Avenue and
Pickford Avenue in the Northwest %of Section 11 in order to
construct a detached garage.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first letter is
from the petitioner, dated May 6, 2005, which reads as follows:
"With this letter 1 am requesting a vacating petition for Lot 314
and 315, 18571 Hillcrest Street of Beverly Gardens. There is an
easement on the property of the adjacent vacant alley, of which
9 feet is required for Detroit Edison. 1 would like to build a wood
garage that is 24 feet by 24 feet and need an additional 2 feet 4
inches of the 9 foot easement. Thank you for your time and
consideration." The letter is signed by Dale K. Hughes. And
also to seek support from his neighbors, he distributed a form
letter, which reads as follows: "Dear Neighbor, Recently 1
updated my home with a new paved cement driveway with the
intention of building a garage. Unfortunately, 1 cannot build my
garage due to a mishap with the City of Livonia. They are
requiring a nine foot easement from the back fence. A permit
was issued and approved prior by the city with an easement of
six foot six inches which is what the cement company went by.
If you would be so kind as to sign this letter, it would help in
building my garage and leaving the six foot six inch easement.
Thank you in advance for your support" Eighteen neighbors
signed this petition in support of his vacating request. The next
item of correspondence is from the Engineering Division, dated
June 14, 2005, 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 additional right-of-way is required, and the legal
description is correct. Please see my attached letter to City
Council of May 23, 2005. We recommend making the vacation
two feet wider than requested in order to provide the two feet of
clearance between the proposed garage and the edge of the
narrowed requested easement" The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The reference letter to the City
Council reads as follows: We are in receipt of Mr. Hughes'
22420
letter of May 6, 2005. There are no City utilities in the easement
adjacent to Lots 314 and 315. The easement referred to is the
East N of formerly vacated 18 foot wide alley. We have no
objection to the vacation of the easement, however, the
petitioner will have to obtain a release from Detroit Edison. It
should also be noted that the garage must be no closer than two
feet from the edge of the new easement If approved, the
following legal description should be used. If the petitioner
wishes to place the garage at 6.67 feet from the center of the
vacated alley, the proposed vacation should be increased to
4.33 feet to provide the required two feet of clearance." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. Thal is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, sir.
Dale K. Hughes, 18571 Hillcrest, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to what we've heard thus far?
Mr. Hughes:
No.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
With your plan to vacate, I have no problem with that if you gel
the release from Detroit Edison. Have you applied for that yet?
Mr. Hughes:
No, I haven't.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you don't know if you're going to get the release or not from
Detroit Edison?
Mr. Hughes:
No. I didn't think of that basically, getting a release from Detroit
Edison.
Mr. Alanskas:
Through the Chair to Mark. Mark, how long does that normally
lake for Edison to give a reply on that when you get a release?
Is it like 90 days?
Mr. Taormina:
I can't answer that. I dont know.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? I'm going to close the public hearing and a
motion would be in order.
22421
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-77-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-05-03-02,
submitted by Dale K. Hughes, requesting the vacating of a
portion of a utility easement on the west side of property located
at 18571 Hillcrest Avenue between Clarita Avenue and Pickford
Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 11, in order to construct a
detached garage, be approved, as amended, to vacate the
easterly 4.33 feet of the existing 9 -foot easement as
recommended by the City Engineer in correspondence dated
May 23, 2005 (rather than the easterly 2.33 feet as requested
by the petitioner), subject to the petitioner obtaining a release
from Detroit Edison, forthe following reasons:
1. That the remaining easement areas, as reduced by the
subtraction of the area proposed to be vacated, will
adequately provide for the protection of public utility
equipment;
2. That the vacating of the specified portion of the easement
will remedy the issue of the existing encroachment;
3. That the portion of the easement area proposed to be
vacated can be more advantageously utilized by the
property owner if unencumbered by the easement; and
4. That the City Engineer recommends the vacating of the
specified portion of the subject easement.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas:
It's pretty apparent that if he does not get a release from Detroit
Edison and we approve this, then it's not vacated. Is that
correct or am I wrong?
Mr. LaPine:
That's correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
That's my understanding.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, one quick question. Does he have to have the
approval of Detroit Edison before Council will approve this, or
will they table it, or how will they handle it?
22422
Mr. Walsh: I would strongly recommend that you do talk to Detroit Edison
as soon as you can, and there will be a little bit of time between
this meeting and the Council meeting, so perhaps he can have it
in hand. They could craft the language accordingly.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2005-05-03-03 DUDAS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
05-03-03,
00505-03-03, submitted by Christine Neslund-Dudas and Steven P.
Dudas requesting the vacating of a 12 foot utility easement that
extends at an angle across property located at 32470 Norfolk
Avenue between Mayfield Road and Hubbard Road in the
Northeast%of Section 3.
Mr. Taonni na presented a map showing the property under petition.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first letter is
from the petitioner, dated April 4, 2005, which reads as follows:
"We hereby petition the City of Livonia to vacate the easement
that runs diagonally across Lot 5 of Imonen Subdivision for
which we are the legal owners of record." The letter is signed
by Christine M. Neslund-Dudas and Steven P. Dudas.. The
next item of correspondence is from the Engineering Division,
dated June 14, 2005, 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 additional right -of -my is required, and the legal
description is correct. Please see my attached letter to City
Council of May 23, 2005." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The reference letter to the City
Council reads as follows: "We are in receipt of the Dudas'letter
of April 4, 2005. Then; art; no City utilities in the easement on
Lot 5 of the Imonen Subdivision. There are no visible signs of
public utilities occupying the easement area. We have no
objection to the vacation of the easement. If approved, the legal
description follows." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer. The next letter is from a resident dated July
6, 2005, which reads as follows: "Thank you for the Notice of
22423
1. That the easement area proposed to be vacated is not
needed to protect any public utilities;
2. That the subject land can be more advantageously utilized
by the property owner if unencumbered by the easement;
3. That the Engineering Division has no objection to the
vacating of the subject easement; and
4. That no public utility company has objected to the
proposed vacating.
Public Hearing conceming the above sent to us last week. We
have spoken with Mr. and Mrs. Dudes about the petition
requesting the vacation of a 12 -foot utility easement on their
property located at 32470 Norfolk Avenue. We see no reason
why this petition should not be granted and hope this matter is
settled favorably at the public hearing" The letter is signed by
Rick and Ewa Chavey, 20310 Mayfield. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, sir.
Steven P. Dudas, 32470 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Do you have anything to add?
Mr. Dudas:
No.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing
none, since he has outlasted every other audience member, we
can go to a motion.
On a motion
by Morrow, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, 0
was
#07-78-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-05-03-03,
submitted by Christine Neslund-Dudas and Steven P. Dudas,
requesting the vacating of a 12 foot utility easement that
extends at an angle across properly located at 32470 Norfolk
Avenue between Mayfield Road and Hubbard Road in the
Northeast % of Section 3, be approved for the following
reasons:
1. That the easement area proposed to be vacated is not
needed to protect any public utilities;
2. That the subject land can be more advantageously utilized
by the property owner if unencumbered by the easement;
3. That the Engineering Division has no objection to the
vacating of the subject easement; and
4. That no public utility company has objected to the
proposed vacating.
22424
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 391" Special Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes ofthe 391" Special Meeting held on June 13, 2005.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#07-79-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 391st Special Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on June 13, 2005, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, Morrow,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 908TM Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 908"' Regular Meeting held on June 28, 2005.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-80-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 908" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on June 28, 2005, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecohi, Morrow,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
22425
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 909" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 12, 2005, was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman