HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-10-28 15758
l MINUTES OF THE 753rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 28, 1997, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 753rd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi James C. McCann
John Walsh Michael Hale Elaine Koons
Members Absent: None
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director*, H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and
Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated.
The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a
vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after
the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon
their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions.
The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the
hearing tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-9-1-14 by
Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the West side of
Farmington Road south of Norfolk in the NE 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA
(Rural Urban Farm-1/2 acre lot) to R-3 (One Family Residential-80'x120'
lot min.).
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from our Engineering Department stating that the
Engineering Division has one objection to the proposal. This office would
request that space for a T turn-around or cul-de-sac be included in the
proposed subdivision layout, since the proposed layout would leave a
15759
dead-end road. Public utilities are available at the south end of the site for
extension to the proposed lots. We trust that this will provide you with the
`' information requested. That's signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer. We
also have a letter signed by Dr. and Mrs. Gerber of 19963 Myron Drive,
Livona as follows: "Dear Mayor Kirksey, John Walsh, James McCann,
Brian Duggan, and Maureen Miller Brosnan. My husband and I moved to
Livonia in 1985 mostly because of the beautiful setting we found on
Myron Drive. We wanted a quiet, minimal traffic location. We wanted
large, lovely trees. We looked for two and a half years in an effort to find
the piece of land that felt just right. Our life has been peaceful here. We
are not happy with the pending decision to rezone the property (97-9-1-14)
just 1,000 feet east of us. The wooded area, which serves as a Farmington
Rd. noise buffer, would be turned into more concrete and more homes.
The result would be a great deal more traffic on our street where 'Mr. and
Mrs. Duck' can quietly roam right now during nesting season. The
raccoons will also be dislodged. There are three lovely guys right smack
dab in the big tree area the rezoning covers. And remember those high
waters that flooded our neighbor's basements on the west side of the cul-
de-sac several years ago? Well, the elimination of the proposed wooded
area will demolish a very large water absorption plain that keeps my house
safe right now. Don't forget we homeowners in the cul-de-sac on the
creek side are in the low part of this once huge forest meadow. I see the
runoff every day from February through October as water wends its way to
the Creek through our backyard. Let's add to this quality of life scenario a
construction traffic log jam. We just got over the Farmington Rd-Eight
Mile construction, which was preceded by Farmington Rd. construction.
I'm not at all optimistic about travel with the thought of housing and road
construction in my fare for 6 months to 3 years. Did you happen to
traverse our sub or even our little section of Farmington Rd. and Norfolk
East and/or West during previous construction times? I feel that I'm just
becoming more and more upset as I conclude this short plea. Can't we
just let the land and our little section of Livonia be? I vote and I will
attend the October 28th meeting."
We also have a protest petition stating: We the undersigned as residents of
Livonia, protest the Petition 97-9-1-14 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone
property located on Farmington Road. We also protest the site plan which
requests access through Windridge Subdivision#3 pursuant to the Cul-de-
sac on Myron Drive. Our objections are based on the following: 1) The
increase in traffic and congestion to a single access subdivision. 2)
Destruction of the cul-de-sac and woods surrounding the established
subdivision will destroy the rural atmosphere that enticed these residents
to purchase homes in Livonia. 3) The proposed lot sizes are considerably
smaller than the existing homes in our subdivision and will adversely
affect property value. 4) The new proposed development will destroy the
15760
greenbelt maintained on the east side of Myron. The destruction of the
greenbelt will significantly change the character of the neighborhood by
increasing the noise level and the exposure that the subdivision will have
to Farmington Road, a major thoroughfare. That is signed with 75
signatures.
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia: I am the engineer and planner for Mr.
Soave. I believe the request for R-3 zoning is very reasonable. To the
west the subdivision Mr. Shane just spoke of is an R-3 zoning. This is a
rezoning petition, not a preliminary plat layout per se. I think you've
looked at three different versions of a preliminary layout. The one that
was advertised in the paper that indicated the cul-de-sac in the Windridge
sub would be opened up and that would be the only access for ingress and
egress to this subdivision. The second plan was laid out to eliminate the
access to the adjoining subdivision and the cul-de-sac and entered on
Farmington Road. I came up with a third plan, the one you are looking at
now, which indicates the only ingress and egress would be from
Farmington Road. The original plan indicated to the west, the cul-de-sac
on the adjoining subdivision. The only access to the subdivision would
have been through that existing cul-de-sac. The second one showed
eliminating this, turning a lot and fronting it into that cul-de-sac and
adding an entrance on Farmington Road. I then prepared this third exhibit
which is direct access from Farmington Road with a large eyebrow and the
back of the lots against that existing cul-de-sac. All these lots are at least
80'x120'. Lots 5 through 9 are 130' deep and if there is a wooded area, a
10' belt could be maintained. One of the gentlemen spoke of water, etc.
Immediately into this area is a flood plain, but it's not directly affected by
this piece of land. All that would be proven at the time of engineering.
Mr. Piercecchi: What about the cul-de-sac that was mentioned in the letter from
Engineering?
Mr. Roskelly: I believe the engineer indicated either a cul-de-sac or a T-turnaround.
Where we show a dead-end street would certainly provide for a T-
turnaround.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is that 50'?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes, and the T-turnaround would then bite into those two lots. Actually,
the pavement would be into the total right-of-way 50', which would be
accessible to fire or any emergency vehicles.
Mr. Piercecchi: Lots 17, 18 and 19 to the north, has any attempt been made to
purchase those and have them join up to Irving Drive? Also lots 27 and 28
south of that.
15761
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia: As far as the three parcels north, I approached the
�.. people two years ago and they had no desire to sell. I also addressed this
about 45 days ago and there was no interest in selling at this time.
Mr. McCann: The 10' greenbelt, would you supplement that with additional greenbelt
material such as evergreens?
Mr. Soave: Yes, I plan to leave the greenbelt undisturbed and where there are no trees,
we will go with 6'-7' evergreens.
Mr. Hale: One of the concerns in the letter that was read by Mr. Shane was the
possibility of an adverse effect on the adjoining lots as far as the type of
homes that will be put in here. This will be an R-3 district. I take it the
homes would be similar to what is on Myron Drive?
Leo Soave: We are not asking for anything different than what exists there now. The
base price would be $250,000 or so, all brick homes. We will only cut
down trees to accommodate the road and backyard drainage and we will
cut the trees as we fit the envelope on the lot.
Mr. Hale: You would leave some of the existing trees as part of the 10' greenbelt.
Mr. Soave: The 10' greenbelt will be undisturbed, untouched. As I said all we will do
is clear enough for the road and utilities. There are 12 lots.
Richard Emrich, 20036 Myron: First of all let me say I was impressed by the builder
who came out to my house on a Saturday morning and said I want to build
in back of you, and we went in the backyard and I asked him a few
questions. I would like to ask him a few more. First, I am concerned that
the houses aren't going to be directly in back, they are going to be off in
an angle. You did promise a greenbelt, and I would like to know how that
10' natural greenbelt is going to look. I do own the property right in back
of your last lot on the northwest corner- I think I split between that farm
and your property. I also would like to know what other subdivisions have
you built in the area so that I can take a look at them. How long will this
take? Again, I was impressed when the builder came out to talk to me, but
I have those few questions that are relevant to me.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, what number are you on the map?
Mr. Emrich: I am#473.
Mr. Roskelly: What he is asking is if the lots will line up. No, but that could be shifted
half way, a third of the way, whatever. They will not all line up. As far as
15762
the 10' greenbelt, I think Mr. Soave indicated he left it in the natural state,
but there will have to be some cosmetics done, putting a few pines or
something of that nature to make it more of a buffer. When I hear buffer I
think it would be somewhat limited because we are R-3 to R-3 with the
same or greater value homes, single family blending into the existing
subdivision.
Mr. McCann: Will you give the residents a couple of examples where you have built
homes in that part of the city?
Mr. Soave: Right now I am building at Six Mile and Merriman, called Cross Winds
Subdivision, and it's typical of the way we do it. We also put the utilities
in. Our next one is Lakeside Subdivision on Aim Arbor Trail, west of
Farmington. Same situation there - we try to leave as many trees as
possible. As far as the length of time it will take, we are talking about
only 12 lots and it will take six months to a year. I've built in Deer Creek
too, and I live in Deer Creek, which is only about a half mile away from
your property.
Carmine Palombo, 20094 Stamford, Livonia: I understand this is just a rezoning petition,
it's not a site plan analysis. I want to raise an issue that I wish you would
take into consideration. I really would like to see it stay the way it is, but
life goes on. People buy property and they have the right to go ahead and
as long as they abide by the rules that are set up, they should have the right
to develop it. My concern is based upon the piecemeal approach of
development in this particular area of the City. I would ask that if this gets
approved, or whatever rezoning you do here, you try to do it in such a
manner that it makes sense for the entire area. If this is rezoned, what will
happen to the piece that is left? What kind of access will we have with the
piece that is left? Will that land be developable in a manner that makes
sense? To the north on the other side of Norfolk we already have a large,
vacant piece of property. There are already two older homes to the north
of that before you get to the medical facility. I don't know that there's
been an awful lot of what appears to be logical thought process as to how
it should be developed. I know that with the way these lots are set up
right now you would have 11 driveways off of Farmington Road. I would
hope that you would consider development so that some of those
driveways could be eliminated. Traffic volume on Farmington Road has
increased about 10%per year based on counts I have received from the
County Road Commission. If you are looking for development, if this
area is rezoned, looking at what is left over to allow that area to be
developed in such a manner that the access doesn't necessarily have to
come out of the subdivision and I hope we can get rid of some of those
driveways. As traffic continues to increase, every one of those driveways
is a potential place for an accident to occur. Those gaps in traffic are
15763
getting smaller and smaller to allow people to back out. So I would ask
you to consider in this and any other proposal that you get for this
... property, what is going to be left over and how can you develop it that is
going to make sense so that the entire area that we live in is going to be
enhanced and not just piecemealed to death.
Michael Ferris, 19875 Myron: My wife and I are the ones who went around to our
neighbors and asked them to sign that petition. I am of a different mind. I
would perhaps to see no development at all. My reason is that it is a
beautiful piece of property now. When I went to Livonia Franklin in
1976, my American Government class told me that American democracy
is ruled by the rule. The thing that surprised me when I went to my
neighbors, most people would say, no I don't want it to be rezoned, I don't
want it to be developed, but if it is going to be developed, this seems to be
the lesser of all the evils. What I would like to say is that the people have
spoken by signing that petition that they would prefer to have no
development if at all possible. If there were a way for this not to occur, I
would be most happy, and I thank you for the opportunity to say so.
Mr. McCann: Every person who owns land in Livonia does have a right to come before
the Planning Commission and petition for change of use or to use the
property in a way that he sees fit. Once the petition is filed, we have to
have a public hearing on that item. They are taxpayers on that property
and have certain rights with regard to that property as far as developing it.
What we are trying to do is look at it and see if it's proper. As Mr. Ferris
stated, we have to look at what the logical development of the City is and
whether or not this petition fits in the area, and that's why we are here
tonight, trying to get everybody's input and be fair with all the parties and
work with it as if we live in the area, which some of us do.
Mrs. Gerber: I wrote that letter about the ducks and raccoons. I work with little children
and that's why my letter had the flavor it did. We live at#462 on the
creek. As I said, I am very concerned about the flavor of Livonia. I spent
about 2-1/2 years looking for a lot. We looked in Dearborn, we looked in
Franklin, we looked in Warren and we settled on Livonia. We wanted to
live in a cul-de-sac because we wanted it to be nice and quiet. I can go out
in the cul-de-sac now and stand in front of those trees that will have to be
chopped down, and I don't hear Farmington Road. It's important to me
because I need quiet. I need some time in my day where I can get out and
be quiet. If I pace off 10', 10' left of those trees, look at what I have now.
What are we doing in Livona? Look at all that stuff on Haggerty and
Seven Mile right now. All this land we are taking away. It concerns me.
I like my neighborhood the way it is.
15764
Laura Ferris, 19875 Myron: We bought our home here a year ago. We bought into what
we thought was an established neighborhood. My concern is that you are
..• taking a neighborhood that has been established for a period of time and
has an atmosphere from the trees and the greenery around and I'm
concerned with the site plan I've seen. We've seen three different site
plans which I realize is the builder's attempt to change some of the things
so that the neighbors will be more pleased with the site plan. I could see
here tonight that the site plan that was on the board, most people couldn't
tell what it looked like. Also the width of the greenbelt - in talking with
Mr. Soave, he told me 10'. I've heard from some of the neighbors 10' to
20'. Also the price of the homes that he is talking about building. We
bought a year ago and we did not pay $225,000 for that home, we paid
significantly more for that area. If you are building new construction in
the $225,000 range, those homes will not be comparable. That will not
help our subdivision. Mainly it is the inconsistency of the site plan. We
need to know exactly what we are getting into. Maybe in another two
weeks we will get another site plan that is a little bit different and not in
our favor.
Mr. Piercecchi: Madam, this is just a rezoning. The site plan will be at the second
stage where everyone will have another input on it. This is just whether it
is proper to put R-3 zoning in this area. The site plan is just a courtesy as
to what is a potential to put in. That will all be weighed and thrashed out
at a later time and you will have an opportunity to have input.
Mr. Roskelly: I believe that what we are asking is certainly compatible with property to
the west. I think Mr. Soave indicated that homes would be $250,000, in
that area. I also believe as an owner of a land, as long as it does not
impede the health, welfare or safety of the citizens, perhaps that person
should be able to use his land that way. With that I would hope you would
give us a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Walsh: I understand the minimum price is roughly $250,000. What are the size of
the homes?
Mr. Soave: For a ranch it would be about 1800 sq.ft., for a colonial about 2400 sq. ft.,
and a story and half about 2250.
Mr. Walsh: Will it be build to suit, or would a purchaser have a set of plans to look at?
Mr. Soave: Most of the time it would be a custom type of home We would put up a
couple of models and go from there. Usually by that time, the way the
market is in Livonia, all the lots would be sold anyhow. I've been a
resident of Livonia since 1970. I bought my first piece of land on
Farmington Road in 1986. At that time in 1986, before I bought this
15765
property, I went to the Engineering Department and asked what would be
the best way to develop this property. You have Myron and you have that
""r street coming off of Norfolk and the plan is to connect those streets. I
think I went to great expense to spare the neighbors. We are not going to
have any construction trucks going through their street, all trucks will be
on Farmington Road. Of all the builders I know, I think I do a very decent
job.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-9-1-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-175-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 28, 1997 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on
the West side of Farmington Road south of Norfolk in the NE 1/4 of
Section 4 from RUFA (Rural Urban Farm-1/2 Acre Lot) to R-3 (One
Family Residential-80'x120' Lot Min.), the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-9-1-14 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the zoning in
the adjacent residential subdivision;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes
which are consistent with other development in the area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Walsh: I am going to vote in favor of this petition because I think the R-3 zoning
is appropriate, but I would urge the petitioner and the neighbors to get
together to see the site plan. I think you still have some work to do when
you come back for that. If they could see it in advance, I think it would
help that process along.
15766
Mr. Hale: I would also add to Mr. Walsh's comments about that. I think that there
can be some work between the neighbors and developer about the
greenbelt and potential berm. These are things to look at the next stage
since this is just a rezoning tonight.
Mr. McCann: I agree with the lady about the ducks and the animals. Unfortunately the
City doesn't own the property so it's not a matter of the City being able to
say yes we need more forestry, more nature preserves. Livonia does a
very good job of that. We do have a developer that has owned this
property for many, many years and he has paid taxes on it. I have to look
at it and say, what is the potential use for this property? The homes along
Farmington Road, someone may be coming in with a lot of other uses
including condos. I notice there have been petitions for office zoning
farther north of the Knights of Columbus Hall. As time goes on, that
property becomes more and more valuable. With the R-3 zoning, we are
matching it up to the current zoning. The petitioner has had a number of
projects in Livonia and we have had few complaints about those projects.
He's well known for getting the job done, and he generally builds a nicer
home than the area he's in because it's profitable for him to do that.
Further, when he states he is willing to do something to put the additional
expense - the expense of putting a road all the way out to Farmington
Road in this project, to putting the double cul-de-sac and putting the T in
and putting a greenbelt and supplying it with trees. Although we don't
have a preliminary plat at this time, I think we can work with him. He's
the type of person who will put everything he can into it. I see that this
property is going to be developed some time, and I think that this
developer is probably going to be the best for the neighbors, so therefore I
am going to vote for it as well.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-9-1-
15 by Butterfly Center requesting to rezone property located on the South side of
Five Mile Road between Cavell and Santa Anita in the NE 1/4 of Section 24 from
R-1A (One Family Residential)to OS (Office Services).
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from the Engineering Department indicating they have no
objections to the proposed rezoning. That's the extent of our
correspondence.
Florence Snelling, 14917 Alexander, Livonia: I am a co-owner of this property. We are
asking to have it rezoned to Office Service. It seems a logical use for this
property. I can remember when Five Mile was two lanes, and those were
narrow lanes, but it is now five full lanes, a high traffic area. St. Paul's
Church has traffic there all the time. These four lots are the only lots
between Inkster and Harrison (a half mile strip) that are residential. All
15767
the rest of it is some form of commercial. It includes a liquor store, a
wedding cake store, a car wash, a medical clinic. On the other side of Five
Mile is also office category, a real estate office and there was a gas station
on the corner, which was then a transmission place and now it's empty.
There is another gas station on the corner of Five Mile and Inkster. I think
that this is an appropriate use for the property, professional offices. As it
currently is, there is space for about 5 individual offices, definitely a low
volume business. We have no plans whatsoever to expand the building.
The access ramp may have to be rebuilt. Otherwise, we really don't have
to make any changes except for cosmetics. I understand one of the
problems is accessibility, and the building is accessible to wheelchairs,
also the restroom is accessible.
Mr. McCann: Why don't you give us a brief description of what you do there.
Ms. Snelling: What we do is psychological treatments; anxiety, depression, post
dramatic stress, alcoholism. That whole category of illness is called the
"worried well"people. These are not people who are truly deranged. It is
all kind of stress-related range of illnesses. We work with people who are
psychotic. We don't work with people who use alcohol or drugs; we only
work as a non-drug program. We see people once a week, some cases
twice a week. We also occasionally have group therapies, family
counseling. More than 80% of our clients are women. Currently, our
youngest client is 3 years old and our oldest is 79. These are all people
who need a little assistance to get through life's rough places. There's
always the potential for that improvement. I have been in business as
Butterfly Center for 6 years. We have never had an incident where the
police have had to be called. This is a very quiet kind of business and we
like it that way. It's a private, quiet kind of place for people to come and
talk about their issues.
Mr. Alanskas: How long have you been there now?
Ms. Snelling: We have been at this particular location for almost 2 years.
Mr. Alanskas: Where were you before?
Ms. Snelling: We rented offices on Five Mile, the other side of Middlebelt for 4 years.
Mr. Alanskas: How many people work there?
Ms. Snelling: Right now there is 1 full time therapist and 3 part time therapists. I am
one of the therapists.
Mr. Alanskas: This is a non-profit organization?
15768
Ms. Snelling: Yes, we are a 5013C.
Amer
Mr. Alanskas: When people go to you, do you get aid from ADC or other moneys, or do
you do it for free?
Ms. Snelling: It's either private paid or third party paid, insurances. We don't have any
state funding.
Mr. Alanskas: Being that this is your third facility, would it be much of an inconvenience
if you had to go somewhere else?
Ms. Snelling: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Wouldn't you be better off in a clinic or something like that for the people
to go to?
Ms. Snelling: There are other places like that, but we are different. We aim at a
particular segment who really doesn't want to go to a high tech operation.
Ms. Koons: You are operating out of a residence. Are you using any part of that as a
residence?
Ms. Snelling: Yes, someone is staying there currently. She's a caretaker.
Ms. Koons: Will that continue?
Ms. Snelling: That was our intent, yes.
Ms. Koons: What are your hours of operation?
Ms. Snelling: Generally, from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 or 9:00 in the evening. Occasionally
from 8:00 in the morning.
Ms. Koons: Are you available for crisis if someone needs you at 3:00 a.m.? Do they
meet you at the office?
Ms. Snelling: No, I would not meet anyone at the office in the middle of the night. All
of our crisis work is done by phone which usually consists of telling them
to go to the hospital or whatever.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you more interested in staying or having it rezoned? In
reading the background on this, it indicates to me that the Zoning Board of
Appeals could allow you a use variance for that. They had a problem
because of the zoning and tabled doing anything in regard to your case.
15769
Ms. Snelling: We are really interested in staying. We want the zoning so that we can
stay. If a variance would allow us to stay, that would make us real happy.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think the ZBA would grant you a variance because they granted
you one before.
Ms. Snelling: They sent us to see you about rezoning.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition?
Chuck Elmasian: I own the three lots to the west of the property, the one directly right
next door to it. When we bought our house, and just before they moved
in, we bought the house for a residence and they have been operating there
rather quietly, but there have been some instances. During the Zoning
Board discussions, there were letters written in where people had
experiences with people wandering around and whatnot. Yes, currently
there is only another 4 homes where there is commercial business,
however, I personally own 5 acres and there has been a lot of discussion
recently from developers of building homes, and there is a possibility that
exists that 69 brand new homes that could possibly be put in there. These
are things that are going to be discussed and there has been a lot of
pressure from people in the last year or so. I have been there about 20
years now, so my point is the situation that exists right now could be
changed to be many, many more private residences and homes. There is
the church that's on the other side of them and that's basically a residential
setting. I think this would open up the possibility if they were allowed to
rezone where it would change the whole character of the neighborhood.
They knew when they bought that house as a residence what it was. I
really fail to understand why they didn't lease a building as a clinic in a
commercial zoning area, a hospital setting. Something of that nature
where people with drug and alcohol problems would be better suited in a
commercial area rather than a home setting. We have a pool where my
daughter and wife go swimming. It's kind of nerve-wracking to have that
type of business in a setting where you have that type of people and
atmosphere coming and going through the back door all day long. We
have a lot of trees there now and it kind of blocks if off, but I can see
where it may accelerate and possibly get worse. I can name only one
instance where it was kind of dangerous where I was talking to a City
chipper and we were blocking the driveway and a guy was leaving and he
practically ran us down. Those kinds of things are not conducive to a
neighborhood setting, especially when you consider the fact that there
could be many more homes built. I think the bottom line is that they knew
going into this that it was a residential house. I feel for them because it
15770
what this corner can be. As I said it's a busy street. As far as incidences
are concerned, I really don't think there have been any. I think this
gentleman is talking about someone's careless driving that could happen
anywhere. My understanding that of the houses that are there, there have
been businesses run from those houses also. There are four houses, one of
them is very small, not on your map. There are things like chicken coops,
there is inadequate fencing. This neighborhood is just a variation of
everything anyway. I think our property is an asset and I think we have
maintained it and it is our intent to continue to maintain it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-9-1-15 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-176-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 28, 1997 by Butterfly Center requesting to rezone property
located on the South side of Five Mile Road between Cavell and Santa
Anita in the NE 1/4 of Section 24 from R-1 A(One Family Residential)to
OS (Office Services), the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-9-1-15 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning would tend to encourage future
requests for non-residential zoning changes along Five Mile Road
immediately west of the subject area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the Future
Land Use Plan designation of low density residential for the subject
area;
3) That existing commercial and office zoning along Five Mile Road
between Inkster Road and Harrison Avenue adequately provides
for office uses to serve this area; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
15771
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.
Mr. Hale: Certainly in our society we have to admire people like you and the
businesses that you are in that so gratefully help people. I don't think you
are any threat to the neighbors in the terms of the business you are
operating there. However, I think that a variance is the more appropriate
thing to do here. The problem I have with an OS zoning is that it opens
the door to a great deal of change and other things that can happen there
other than your own business, so for that reason I will be in favor of the
denying resolution.
Ms. Koons: I admire your work. I know of the Butterfly Clinic through the school
district. I want to remind everyone that we can all be part of the "worried
well"throughout some part of our life. They are not people to be afraid
of They are people without support of families and need that little extra
boost. I am concerned about the rezoning and what else might happen. I
hope you can find a spot that fits your needs.
Mr. Walsh: I just want to echo for the purpose of the ZBA to review, I too agree with
Mr. Hale. I think rezoning is inappropriate, but I believe you provide a
valuable service and are doing it in a reasonable manner, but I am
concerned about changing it to OS at this time. I am hopeful that the ZBA
will see that a variance is appropriate.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-9-1-
16 by Teamsters Local Union#243 requesting to rezone property located on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Foch Avenue and Green Lane in the SE 1/4
of Section 13 from R-1 (One Family Residential-80'x120' Lot Min.) to RUF
(Rural Urban Farm-1/2 Acre Lot Min.).
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from our Engineering Division stating they have no
objections to the proposed development although the new approach layout
for Farmington Road must be approved by the Wayne County. There is
Sanitary Sewer and Water main to available to the site. There is no City
15772
Storm Sewer available, so drainage will need to be taken care of by a
Wayne County Storm Sewer line. Signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer.
Robert Allen, architect for this project, Allen & Laux Architects, 23611 Liberty Street,
Farmington: I am here this evening with Mr. Greg Lowran of Teamsters
Local 243 to present this proposal to you. We are coming before you to
ask for rezoning of an existing parcel of R-1 to OS and P. Our intention is
to rezone this so that it is more in keeping with the Future Land Use Plan
to accommodate the uses for the new businesses offices of the Teamsters
local. To give you a brief history of the Teamsters: This particular local
was organized in 1943 and has approximately 4500 members. However
out of those 4500 members, approximately a third of them work in
Livonia. The intention of the Teamsters is for providing a more central
location for their local's use and to provide a convenient site and an
appropriate home for their business offices. Currently, the lot as you see
on the zoning map is essentially a residential lot that is between 2
commercial districts, one being a C designation and the other OS. The
proposal is to make the south 160' of this parcel consistent with the
adjacent OS district to the east. The area that goes north that backs up to
the existing residential district, the intention is to rezone that as parking.
The reason that we propose to approach this resolution for rezoning is that
by zoning the northern portion of that lot we felt that we felt that we could
provide some assurances to the adjoining residences that we could provide
an adequate buffer zone and that they would not have a building going up
essentially in their backyard. With regard to the function of the Teamsters,
this is a business office. Basically, the way it operates, is that there are 10
to 15 employees that will be there on a daily basis. There are occasionally
visitors, but in general it would have a very low traffic. You will notice
that on the site plan that was submitted to you that we do have a very
substantial area for parking. Ocassional meetings in the evening,
approximately 12-16 meeting a year. These occur from September to
May. There are no meetings in the summer. The intention is to provide
adequate parking on those occasions when they would have larger
meetings. In general, most of those larger meetings would have 50
additional people, and perhaps once or twice a year they might have 100.
In the parking area shown there would have a buffer zone of
approximately 15'. If you've visited the site, you know there is extensive
vegetation on there and the thought would be to maintain that buffer to
keep as little an impact on the adjacent residents as possible. The site plan
shows you a good idea of the greenbelt that surrounds the proposed
parking.
j Mr. Piercecchi: Do you own the property now?
15773
Mr. Lowran: We are in the process now. It's pending the rezoning of the property. One
•.. owner owns the whole package. There's a house on it now which will be
torn down.
Mr. Alanskas: Where is your local 243 at the present time?
Mr. Lowran: We are in Detroit on Trumbull Avenue just north of Tiger Stadium. We
are in a complex that has a number of locals in it. It is just ourselves that
are moving our local.
Mr. Alanskas: If you have 4500 members, you are saying you would only have a
maximum 100 members attending a meeting?
Mr. Lowran: Yes. We have meetings during the year, only spring and fall. We break
up our meetings in our crafts. Not all our members come to meetings
because they are located all over the City. We may have a ratification
meeting, and that's about once a year we may have 100 to 125 people.
Most of the time we have small craft meetings, which most of our people
are 50 to 100 people in a company so our average meetings have 30 to 50
people, and we have those on Sundays during the day from 9:00 to 11:00
or 12:00 in the morning.
Mr. Alanskas: So you would never have any meetings during the week?
Mr. Lowran: In the 12 years I have been at the local as an officer, when we have
meetings we have office meetings of 10 to 15 people. I can never say
never, but I would say 99.99% of the time. The only meetings we have at
night are just regular business meetings with just the people on the staff,
and that is very seldom.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a hard time visualizing all this parking in a residential area with all
the cars coming and going, especially in the evening. I think it would be
kind of tough on the surrounding neighbors.
15774
Mr. Lowran: I can understand that. Most of our business is done from 8:00 am to 5:00
PM. There would not be anything at night. We may have an occasional
member that stops in,just the membership is in the morning.
New
Mr. Alanskas: Your hours are what time?
Mr. Lowran: Our office hours are from 8:00 in the morning to 5:00 p.m.
Mr. McCann: Are there ever any social functions held at the office?
Mr. Lowran: No. We do not hold any social functions. We do an MDA, we do a
bowlathon. We do a number of social functions, but that is outside of our
offices. We don't have any social functions that are at the hall.
Mr. McCann: You don't have any social functions on a Friday night, a Thursday night
membership meeting?
Mr. Lowran: We don't have any meetings during the week because our people all work.
Most of our industry is night. Most of our drivers, like UPS, are still out
on the road. Our Sears technicians are out on the road, Montgomery
Wards. A lot of our companies work 24 hours, so the only day we really
have available is Sunday, so that's why we have meetings Sunday
morning.
Mr. McCann: Would you consider a voluntary restriction on the parking at say 8:00?
Mr. Lowran: I don't have a problem with that. We don't have meetings or social
functions then, so that would not be a problem for us.
Mr. McCann: What I am concerned about is the neighbors. One of my concerns is that if
you leave this area, what is going to happen to this area? Although I think
the Teamsters are going to be around for a long, long time.
Mr. Lowran: We have been in the building in Detroit since 1943. The problem we have
is when we started out, we were a small local. There is basically 10 locals
in that building now and they haven't done any type of renovation to the
building. In our office of 1000 sq.ft., we have 10 people in there. We
don't have any room. Basically, with our membership between Redford,
15775
Livonia and the outlying areas, we have at least half of our membership
that lives in this area. So we figured that Livonia was the best place for
us. One of the things we looked at was that we wouldn't have night
`"' meetings to disturb the neighbors.
Mr. McCann to Mr. Shane: H, is there a waiver use for parking in an R-1 zoning?
Mr. Shane: No. You do have site plan approval when it comes to parking layout, so
there is no reason you can't exact some restrictions at that time. That
would run with the site plan.
Mr. McCann: As you can see, you have a lot of neighbors back there and you have 100
cars back there at 11:00 at night, people getting in and out, there would be
nobody sleeping.
Mr. Lowran: We wouldn't have any problem with that because we wouldn't be there at
night.
Mr. McCann: If we restricted the rear end of the parking lot where it Ts out, to 8:00 PM
and 6:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays, you wouldn't have a problem
with that?
Mr. Lowran: No.
Mr. Allen: It would not be a problem with the way the rezoning is if you took that
parking district as a whole because the rest of the parking would be more
than sufficient.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you predicating the fact that you would have no more than 50-100 at a
meeting in the Detroit area? How are you getting these figures?
Mr. Lowran: We get those figures on our companies that come down to meetings in
Detroit, but that has not been a problem because it's in Detroit. When we
have the figures most of our companies are 100 or less. There are only a
few that have more than 100 employees. UPS is one of them and when we
have a UPS meeting, we always rent a hall. Most of all our other
companies are 25 to 30 employees.
15776
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I am asking that is that I figure if you are going to move in the
,,— Redford Livonia area, they will say that now I am so close, I am going to
start to go to meetings and now you will have an increase of people who
want to go to these meetings.
Mr. Lowran: The only way that that would increase is if we put all meetings into one.
Our meetings are set up into individual craft meetings so we can deal with
individuals.
Mr. Walsh: What about lighting in the parking lot?
Mr. Allen: We haven't submitted for site plan approval yet, but we would assume that
we want to have that illuminated and we would want to control the lights
so that it would not spill off the site. Certainly we would want to have
them shielded. We would want to open up to discussion with the
Commission and the neighbors concerning illumination hours. There's
mixed opinion as to whether a vacant parking lot is better off well lit at
night, or whether the neighbors would rather have it on a timer so that it
shuts off.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Eric Kraffa, 15410 Foch: I have been a Teamster for 12 years. I am in Local 337.
Every time Teamsters get together and have meetings, you will have a
group of guys who will always stop and get beer, alcohol. They drink
before they get in, number 1. They are loud. Before they enter the
building, they will discuss, finish drinking their beers. Vulgarity. We
have a lot of kids in the neighborhood. After they finish their meeting,
they will come out and say, "This looks like a real good neighborhood.
Let's go out and check it out and see how nice the houses are." That will
bring unwanted traffic to our neighborhood. Three years ago they had a
petition and wanted to put a group home up there. We denied that. Two
years ago I called the real estate company that was offering to sell the land
for the people and they outright told me that I did not have enough money
to buy the property. Before I called them, I went to the 10 neighbors that
this land is directly going to affect. We all agreed that we would pitch in
and buy the land. They told us we don't have enough money. Our
—
concern is that there is just going to be a lot of unwanted traffic. At night
15777
time is Livonia Police going to be able to come there where there are
punks sitting back there drinking? We have a few of the neighbors that are
widowers who are going to be by themselves who will feel very unsafe
`as. because of the fact that there is just a green wall. I think in the long term
you can look at the big local in Detroit and that's what you may have here.
We do have other locals. I believe the UAW has a local on Plymouth
Road. Why can't they go to Plymouth Road? This is a big chunk of land
and we would like to keep it nice and quiet. With a building of that
magnitude back there, it is not going to be quiet. If the UPS come in and
they are disgruntled, sometimes you don't get just 5 or 10 employees.
Sometimes you get 50 to 100 going down there because they are upset
about something that happened and they want to go down there and talk to
their business agents. Sometimes these meetings are unauthorized. Are
they going to be able to prevent that? We also have a petition that we have
a lot of signatures on stating that we would not like this in our
neighborhood.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, would you summarize the petition for us?
Mr. Shane: The petition reads: The following list of names are those who are opposed
to the sale of property and rezoning commercial of Lots in the SE 1/4 of
Section 13 for Teamster Local 243. We the neighbors of Livonia feel this
will bring in unwanted traffic, unwanted situations, loud noises, lowering
of property values, litter etc. We the people have several children in this
area that we feel will directly affect them. That's signed by about 35-40
people.
Mr. Piercecchi: Did the owners of the property say that you did not have enough
money, or that he would not sell to you?
Mr. Kraffa: He said that I, personally, did not have enough money to buy the land.
They didn't reject it, he said that"Sir, you don't have enough money;
period". Now before I called them, I went and talked to all 10 neighbors
that would be directly involved. They all said"Yes, we would like to
parcel it out". We would like to keep the woods back there. They all have
kids who play back there.
Alyce Brandon. I live at the last lot where they want the parking lot at the north end. I
have been a resident there on Foch, lot 43, for 40 years. I would like that
petition by the Teamsters rejected and keep this property residential as
15778
zoned. This proposal adversely affects my property, as well as the
adjoining neighbors. A commercial venue of any kind would depreciate
our property value and also expose us to undesirable elements. I believe
the safety of myself, as well as children, grandchildren and neighbors in
our neighborhood could be in jeopardy as a parking lot of this magnitude
would not be patrolled by our Police Department because of the depth.
It's 575' off of Five Mile Road. I hope you will give this your
consideration.
Troy Buono, 15440 Foch, lot#42. Basically what I would like to say is that I purchased
my home in 1986 and the biggest draw to that neighborhood was that there
were no curbs, plenty of trees, rural mail boxes, no sidewalks. As a matter
of fact, at that time the street was still dirt, but they have since paved. I
wanted to be away from all the noise of the traffic and the car doors and
the lights shining in your windows and children playing and loitering,
littering and crying. I don't believe that a residential neighborhood is a
good place for a parking lot or a place of business and basically that's
what you are asking here - to put a parking lot that will be directly
adjacent to or next to approximately 20 residents. I do not believe that
would enhance the community or neighborhood. The neighbors that I
have spoken to say the rezoning would do harm to the stability and to the
tranquillity of the neighborhood and also affect the peacefulness and safety
of our well established neighborhood. Given more thought and planning,
a more progressive and useful plan could be created for the use of that
property. Possibly even new homes or a neighborhood park. I would like
to urge the Commission to vote no on this petition.
Julie Curran, 15340 Foch: The Teamsters mentioned that they would not be in our
backyards. They will be. I am a single mother. I have a daughter that I
have concern for. There is a lot of noise, a lot of traffic and they may
bring a lot of people that we are not sure about. It is residential, it should
stay residential. It is beautiful back there. I look out my doorwall and I
have the woods, I have rabbits. I bought here in Livonia for the school
system for my daughter. It is a nice home. I would hate to have to leave.
I think the people feel the same way I do.
Gerald Wiebech, 15475 Green Lane: I agree with my fellow neighbors about the
property and about the problems with the Teamsters. My major concern
that I have has nothing to do with the Teamsters. Whether it's with the
Teamsters or not, it's the development of this land to change the
classification from residential to anything else. The big problem we have
is it calls for the construction of a parking lot. Among other things it is
15779
going to cause some severe problems with the flow of surface water in that
area. The water essentially drains from the west to the east. We have a
system of culverts and drainage ditches representing literally hundreds of
`o- yards. Over 400 yards that in most cases the City of Livonia is not even
aware of. Some of them go through my yard. I have over 100 yards in my
property alone. The problem is that we often get flooding to where we can
get 18" of water in our yards. It's been chronic. It's been awful.
Sometimes that water stays for 2-4 weeks at a time. The proposal that
they have for this site is inappropriate and would actually aggravate the
conditions that we already have.
Alexandra Piangerelli, 15433 Green Lane: My property backs up to the property that will
possibly be rezoned. I have been in this home for 12 years and I am
raising 2 children who frequently play in the backyard, not after 8:00 at
night when they say they would ban parking. My children will be playing
when their cars will be there, without a barrier. Anything that goes on in
the parking lot will flow into my backyard. My backyard, my neighbors,
my children - anyone will have total access 24 hours a day to any of that. I
hoped to stay in the home that I'm in, but safety is my greatest concern
and I think that building a Teamster's office and parking lot will totally
change the atmosphere and the safety of our neighborhood.
Elizabeth Moore, 15445 Green Lane: I have been there for 39 years and raised my
family. I am a widow. I don't think I would feel safe with a parking lot
there, and I would appreciate your denying this proposal.
Edward Angle, 15326 Foch: I have lived in Livonia for 7 years, the same street, 3
different houses. The problem I have has already been stated, but as far as
the value and the use of the land as far as the zoning as residential, I think
it should be left at that and other avenues as have been discussed, either
the residents buying the property or other things that could be done. When
the last tax assessment came through, I went to talk to the office on how
they calculated it and why it was so high. She said it was because of the
other residences in the neighborhood. But, she said because my property
already joins commercial property there, and this would be on the side, so
I am going to be boxed in, and she said my property would be a little less
value because you already adjoin commercial property. So what is this
going to do to my property and the other property values? I think there are
many other parcels in Livonia. I welcome them to come, but not in my
backyard.
Mr. Allen: We did come before you this evening with a developed site plan because
we are sensitive to the issue of putting up a parking lot behind some
15780
existing residences. I would like to address some concerns with regard to
access. Certainly at site plan approval there is no problem in putting up a
masonry wall to control traffic off of this site. With regard to access to
'`'` this site after business hours, it's been indicated that our client is certainly
willing to control voluntarily access and there is no reason that this
parking lot could not be gated. Accordingly, after a meeting, the parking
lot can be vacated and security can be ascertained so that there would not
be people circulating after hours when they should not be. With regard to
the zoning, I think it should be pointed out that unfortunately the existing
residences there turn out to be spot zoned. We essentially have a
commercial street and we have access to that commercial street, not to the
residential district and by doing this OS zoning, we actually get rid of a
spot zoning. With regards to concerns about circulation through the
neighborhood, these meetings aren't occurring at night. I cannot imagine
that someone would search out to go down that particular neighborhood
afterwards when they are dumped out on Five Mile Road. There are many
other places they could go to discuss their meetings. I think the noise
issue and control of access, we probably can address in terms of site plan
approval. Finally, I would like to add that certainly that site is a very
troublesome one in terms of creating. It's very deep and the frontage on
Five Mile Road certainly lends itself to a commercial use. It is unlikely
that that parcel would want to be developed as a residential distinct
because of its spot zoning between two commercial uses. I would suggest
that this type of proposal where the use is very carefully controlled, where
they know that a building isn't going to go back behind there, and where
we can control access on the site and have a very low usage, even though
it looks like a lot of parking, you are actually looking at something like a
church parking lot. It isn't going to get a lot of use. I think it does justify
the Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Lowran: I would like to say a couple of words to the residents that live around there
and the one brother that belongs to 337. I can guarantee you that our
members are not allowed to drink on the property. They are not allowed
to come to our meetings intoxicated. If they do, and I've been there for 12
years, any meetings that we have, you are not allowed to drink on the
property, and if you come in intoxicated, you are told to go home. And
that's in Detroit. You are not going to see that, you are not going to see
beer bottles and people sitting there before or after a meeting drinking. I
can understand that worry. Out of our membership, we have 200 people
who live in Livonia, so they are not people who are going to come in and
destroy their own City, let alone all the ones who work in Livonia. They
wanted us to come to Livonia because they are proud of their City. When
we looked for a piece of land, we looked for something big enough so we
wouldn't be cramped. We also looked to put the building up front because
15781
we knew that the privacy of the neighbors would be needed. They
wouldn't have noise, they wouldn't have a building like someone putting a
store in where there is a lot of traffic and that's why we put it this way
with the building up front and the parking in the back.
Mr. McCann: You would agree to gate the rear portion of the property, unless it was a
special meeting, you say only on the weekends, no one would have access
to that?
Mr. Lowran: We have no problem with gating the property.
Mr. McCann: Would you be willing to put a masonry wall, probably on the inside?
Mr. Lowran: My understanding is that Livonia would enforce a masonry wall or wood
wall that would divide that property anyway, so that was in our plans. We
thought the neighbors would want more of a greenbelt there because that's
what they've had with the trees.
Mr. McCann: Can we keep the greenbelt and put a masonry wall there?
Mr. Allen: We certainly could in terms of planning. We also could address the
drainage issue on that site since we would have to provide drainage for the
parking lot, so we actually can better the condition that is there by taking
care of that surface drainage that has no place to go.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you tried other places of Livonia?
Mr. Lowran: Yes, we have. We've looked at a number of other spots. Most of them are
a little on the small side. This one was larger with 200' x 200'.
Mr. Alanskas: Did you go to the Chamber of Commerce?
Mr. Lowran: Yes. We also went through with a number of realtors. We looked at
buildings to revamp. We looked at the old AAA building on Hubbard and
Five Mile, but the cost of redoing something like that was even more than
doing our own building. We wanted something that was more into
15782
something like a subdivision instead of being an everyday office. We
wanted someplace quiet, we were quiet, and it would blend more.
Mr. Alanskas: I guess the question I would have to ask myself, how would I like it if all
of a sudden my backyard was surrounded by a parking lot. I personally
think that this is the worse spot to put this facility. I can't believe that
there isn't other property. You say the AAA building would be too much
money to renovate, but that's because you don't want to spend that kind of
money. There's got to be other areas of Livonia or Redford.
Mr. Lowran: We've looked at trying to find property on Plymouth Road, we tried to
find property on Middlebelt and Merriman.
Mr. Alanskas: You've tried Plymouth Road? There's a property right next to Chimento's
Market. Do you know where the Salvation Army is on Plymouth Road
near Farmington Road? The Salvation Army is moving out of there and
it's a big parcel.
Mr. Lowran: With a building on it?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Lowran: Now you are asking me to tear a building out. I can't redo a building with
the laws. So that everybody understands, I have to remove all the wiring
because of carcinogenic. Any wall that was put up prior to 1985 is
drywall actually has fiberglass and asbestos in the drywall. One of the
things we looked at was trying to take an older building, but the cost was
too high.
Mr. Alanskas: I appreciate that, but I think this is just the wrong area.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-9-1-16 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and approved, it was
#10-177-97 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on Petition 97-9-1-16 by Teamsters Local
15783
Union#243 requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five
mile Road between Foch Avenue and Green Lane in the SE 1/4 of Section
13 from R-1 to OS and P, the Planning Commission does hereby
`ft. recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-9-1-16 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents a deep encroachment of a
non-residential zoning district into a low density residential area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony
with adjacent residential uses and zoning districts in the area; and
3) That existing commercial and office zoning along Five Mile Road
between Inkster Road and Harrison Avenue adequately provides for office
uses in this 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hale: This is one of the ones I feel strongly against for the reasons that
ultimately in terms of the future land use, I would like to see this land
acquired by either the neighbors on Foch or Green Lane, if that could be
arranged. I think that as proposed currently, this would really affect the
stability and tranquillity of the neighbors in the surrounding area. Even if
the parking lot is not full at night time, there is something inherently
wrong about having a parking lot in the midst of 11 backyards regardless
of whether there would be a masonry wall there.
Mr. Piercecchi: In my opinion, the ideal package for this area would be to rezone
the area abutting Five Mile Road OS because offices currently occupy the
corner lots of Green Lane and Foch, and have the top 255'x140' purchased
by the current landowners which are adjacent to this section inasmuch as
they showed a desire to buy that land and that won't happen again.
Mrs. Koons: I also feel that this is an intrusive use of this property. Part of our job here
is to try and finds ways by asking about a wall, asking about a gate, so that
light bulbs go off and we say, well maybe this will work. However, I
think that even with the things Mr. McCann suggested and you so
15784
r.
graciously agreed to, still invites teens particularly, a gate would be
inviting possibly, a wall would be inviting,possibly. I am sympathetic to
_y. your trying to find a spot, but I think this is the wrong spot.
Mr. McCann: I am a little torn on this because I do feel for the neighbors. I thought
putting a masonry wall and a greenbelt was a reasonable solution. What
you do by office zoning the front, leaving a residential, is landlocking it
and making the property of absolutely no use except to the neighbors. I
don't see that R-1 could ever be built in that area, it's not large enough. I
think that any other use that will eventually come in there could
potentially be worse for the neighbors than someone who is basically
going to have it gated and locked 95% of the time, but for weekends
during morning hours. I think in the long run it may turn out to be the
better use. It might not turn out to be residential. The only thing I can
think of that might go in their would be condominiums, and I'm not sure
that they would fit.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Hale, Koons, Walsh
} NAYS: McCann
New
ABSENT: None
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-10-1-
18 by Baki Unique Home Builders requesting to rezone property located on the
North side of seven Mile Road East of Fitzgerald Avenue in the SW 1/4 of
Section 5 from R-3B (One Family Residential-80'x120' Lot Min.)to RUF (Rural
Urban Farm-1/2 Acre Lot Min.).
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
*9:15. Mr. Nagy arrived at this time.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from our Engineering Department dated October 3
indicating they have no objection to this proposal. That's signed by David
Lear, Civil Engineer 1.
Sam Baki, 36700 W. Seven Mile, Livonia: I would like to remove this item off the
agenda to a later date.
15785
Mr. McCann: We first have to hold a public hearing because it has been scheduled. Can
you tell us why you want it off the agenda at this time?
Mr. Baki: I've had discussion with the City Council with respect to a different use
for that parcel.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-10-1-18 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, supported by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it
was
#10-178-97 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 28, 1997 on Petition 97-10-1-18, the Planning Commission does
hereby approve the request to withdraw Petition 97-10-1-18 as submitted
by Baki Unique Home Builders requesting to rezone property located on
the north side of Seven Mile Road east of Fitzgerald Avenue in the SW
1/4 of Section 5 from R-3B to RUF.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was
'..• published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of
October 12, 1997 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit
Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Ameritech
Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments
as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-9-2-
25 by Tri-West Development requesting waiver use approval to construct cluster
housing on property located on the East side of Farmington Road between
Norfolk and Fargo in the NW 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: A letter from the Department of Public Safety dated September 30, 1997
states that the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as
submitted. That's signed by Office John Gibbs of the Traffic Bureau. The
City Engineering Department is recommending that a revised legal
description be utilized in connection with this petition. The Engineering
15786
Division has no objections to the proposed development although the new
approach layout for Farmington Road must be approved by the Wayne
County. There is sanitary sewer and water main to connect to in the area
although special permits will be needed to be obtained from Wayne
County since the water main is under Farmington Road. There is no City
storm sewer available so drainage will need to be taken care of by a
Wayne County storm sewer line. Signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer.
Lastly, we have a letter from the Fire Marshal dated September 30. They
have no objection to this proposal however, this Division is requesting a
hydrant be located at the entrance to the complex and consistent with
normal spacing for residential properties. That's signed by our Fire
Marshal, Rocky Whitehead.
Sam Baki, 36700 Seven Mile Road, Livonia: We bought this site with 2 old houses on it.
The site is 2.17 acres with a big back yard. The houses are not worth
anything and will have to be torn down. We checked the neighborhood
and located another condo site that went up 3 years ago on Norfolk. We
used that site as a comparison to what should be put on this site. Under
the waiver use, the calculation came out to be 9.7 units, so we went with
the 9 units. These units will be larger than the units at the site on Norfolk.
The sites on Norfolk have 1800 sq. ft. colonials. We are putting
approximately 2100 sq.ft. one-and-a-half stories, with the master suite on
the first floor. We have the proper set backs. We have three 2-units and
r.. one 3-unit building. That gives us a nice cul-de-sac and court. We have
nice brick elevations. We have brick all the way around on the first floor.
Every unit has a two-car garage attached. We feel that these units give us
what we are looking for in the area. We are listing these at $229,900 plus.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, our petition call for cluster house, these are condos.
Does this qualify?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it does. It's the form of ownership of the property. These are
dwelling units that are consistent with the size of units required in R-3.
With the cluster option here, you look at underlying density of the zoning
classification established on the property, in this case R-3. R-3 would
allow single family lots at 9600 sq.ft. in lot area, so you divide that area
into the total area of the site to determine the number of units. Rather than
having conventional single family lots, we allowed him to put the same
number of units as you would have homes on individual lots. It gives him
more flexibility to cluster- bring these homes that would be on separate
lots together in clusters and thereby have more flexibility in the
development of the property. What you are trying to accomplish through
this is to determine whether or not the cluster option is a better form of
development for the subject property than what you might get by adhering
to the conventional development. Are there some unique qualities of the
15787
property, such as stands of trees or some other wetland issues, or some
other inherent qualities that can better be served by clustering the units as
`... opposed to having them spread out in single family lots.
Mr. Piercecchi: Doesn't the ordinance specify certain criteria like surrounded by
businesses and unique topographic? Does this property fit that?
Mr. Nagy: That's the burden the petitioner carries to convince you, given the
standards that's set forth in the ordinance, whether or not that's met that
test. Whether or not he's met those standards that are set forth in the
cluster are being met on this plat.
Mr. Piercecchi: I know that there is OS to the south of it.
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it adjoins office to the south, similar cluster development to the north
and has frontage on a major thoroughfare of 120' of right-of-way or
greater.
Mr. Alanskas: It says here that 4 parking spaces per unit would be provided. Would there
be ample room if say 5 or 6 people came over and they had to park cars
somewhere?
Mr. Baki: Yes, on the street. The road and cul-de-sac meets the need of what the
Fire Marshal requires.
Mr. McCann: Is that a 50' road?
Mr. Baki: It's not a 50' road, It's 28' feet of asphalt pavement which is typical for a
50' or 60' road.
Mr. Piercecchi to John Nagy: Doesn't a condo package have to have common property?
Where's that in this case?
Mr. Nagy: It will be the grounds surrounding the individual units.
Mr. Piercecchi: You will have an Association?
Mr. Baki: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Steve Summers, 20025 Shadyside, Livonia: My major concern is the lack of a natural
greenbelt between my rear lot line and the building 30' away. Right now
..... that has many large dead elm trees which have to come down. Mr. Baki
15788
has been notified by the City on this, but nothing has been done. When
they do come down there will be not much left there between my rear lot
,,.. line and the new building. I would hope the Planning Commission would
look towards a possible greenbelt, possibly an evergreen berm to help
buffer that 30' setback. I would greatly appreciate that.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Baki, what is that rear building there to the east?
Mr. Baki: It is approximately 33' which meets our minimum requirement for
setbacks. Between residential you only need fencing. We don't need a
greenbelt like adjacent to commercial. Some of the trees he is referring to,
we just got notified last week. The prior owner was notified before we
purchased the property, but we were not aware of it until after we
purchased it. We are in the process of cutting some of these trees, we are
planning to put more trees in. The back area we want to leave most of the
trees on the property.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is there going to be parking back there?
Mr. Baki: No. It's a backyard.
Mr. Piercecchi: You could possibly do something then.
... Mr. Baki: (showed the landscaping plan). It is well landscaped at the front entrance
off Farmington Road. I talked to the adjacent neighbor and one of his
main concerns was lights from people driving in, so we can put more trees
on his side of the property as a buffer. As you can see, we have more trees
planned even though we are saving most of the trees. At this time we
don't have an actual count of the trees here. We will see what we have
when we start actual construction and start tearing trees down.
Mr. Piercecchi: For a buffer zone, wouldn't pines be a better bet?
Mr. Baki: There's a lot of trees there. If you put new trees in, you will disturb the
trees next to it.
Mr. Alanskas: You said you got a notice from the City that those trees will have to come
down? How many are they referring to?
Mr. Baki: Approximately 5.
Mr. Alanskas: How old are they? Have you seen them?
Mr. Baki: No.
15789
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Summers, are they huge trees?
N... Mr. Summers: Yes, they are. They overhang my fence line. The hazard there is that in a
good storm it could damage something or injure somebody.
Mr. Alanskas: When you take those 5 trees down, what can you do for Mr. Summers to
alleviate his problem?
Mr. Baki: I don't even know what it looks like now. I'm talking about other trees
and vegatation that is around there. We won't do any clearing until
construction.
Mr. Alanskas: I hope that if you are instructed by the City to take those 5 trees down that
you will replace them.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, would it be appropriate at this time to hold off on the landscape
plan until we get some of that stuff out of there?
Mr. Nagy: Absolutely.
Mr. McCann: We can deal with that later and it won't hold up your project and we will
have a better idea on how you can protect your neighbors.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this petition?
Tom Gipple, 33359 Norfolk, Livonia: I agree with Mr. Summers about the greenbelt and
the fact that some of the trees coming down will leave it pretty sparse. I
am new to the area. I don't have a problem per se with the development. I
would like to make sure that it's developed in conjunction, or to the same
specs, as to the development that I just purchased. The same quality of
materials and so forth. The thing that I am a little concerned about, the
property seems to be still for sale and that leaves me to believe that the
financing is not available to complete the project, or it is still coming into
play, and I would like some kind of assurance that the development will be
completed in a timely manner. I am not familiar with the Livonia
ordinances concerning that.
Mr. McCann: I don't know what you paid for yours, but if someone is paying 229,000
plus for 2100 sq. ft. all brick, you will get a pretty nice interior too. The
elevations look pretty impressive.
Mr. Alanskas: If you get all the approvals, Mr. Baki, how long will you be doing this
project?
r.� Mr. Baki: One year.
15790
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Baki, the property looks like it is still for sale?
Mr. Baki: I am a real estate agent too. Putting a sign out on the property is an
exposure for my name to get phone calls. We have it listed at a
tremendous price with approval for condos if other builders want to
purchase, but we are not selling the property as it is. We are proceeding as
planned with the developments.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-9-2-25 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-179-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 28, 1997 on Petition 97-9-2-25 by
Tri-West Development requesting waiver use approval to construct cluster
housing on property located on the East side of Farmington Road between
Norfolk and Fargo in the NW 1/4 of Section 3, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-9-2-25 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
_.. 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated 9/16/97 prepared by
the Design Group, LLC, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
2) That the building elevation plans marked Sheets A-2 and A-3
prepared by The Design Group, LLC, which are hereby approved, shall be
adhered to;
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Project Number 97-191 dated
10/17/97 prepared by the Design Group, LLC, is hereby tabled for further
review and recommendation.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section
20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
... surrounding uses in the area.
15791
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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: If it is appropriate, can we say that upon all approvals this site will be done
in completion of no more than one year.
Mr. Nagy: There is a one year limitation on your site plan approval. When the
developer gets his building permit, he has six months and subject to
another six month extension by the Chief Building Inspector, so he gets 12
months to complete the project.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-9-2-
26 by K-Mart Corporation requesting waiver use approval for an SDM license
(packaged beer and wine) for an existing store on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from our Engineering Division stating they have no
objections to this petition. That's signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer.
We also have a letter from the Inspection Department stating the proposed
location is within 500 ft. of an existing SDM licensed establishment. The
utilization of the SDM will require the City Council to waive the 500 ft.
requirement. That is signed by David M. Woodcox, Sr. Building
Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence.
David Smith, 30255 Plymouth Road: The petition before you is just asking that with our
new renovated, remodeled Big K Mart, that we increase our traffic flow by
giving our customers a more variety of merchandise. We have included in
our new remodeling what we call a Pantry which includes various new
items that Kmart has never handled before, and beer and wine would be an
added addition to that selection.
Mr. Hale: What percent of your sales would account for the proposed use of the
SDM, packaged beer and wine?
15792
Mr. Smith: I am sure less than 10% or 5%.
'NO` Mr. Hale: So it is not something that is absolutely necessary. How does that fit into
that overall new concept of the Big K.
Mr. Smith: The Big K is quite similar to the Super Kmarts that I am sure you heard
about. The Super K sells more groceries than we do at the Big K. It is
just something else to add variety to the customers that shop with us, that
don't want to go to the Super Ks perhaps.
Mr. Alanskas: Because of the setback that you have, on the ranking of your store
compared to the Seven Mile-Farmington store, are you equal to them, or
above them, or below them?
Mr. Smith: The Seven Mile and Farmington store does approximately $4 million more
per year than we do. As far as ranking, I don't know what ranking that is.
Mr. Walsh: Has there been a demand for this type of product?
Mr. Smith: No. We have made comments to our customers that our Big K is going to
carry more grocery lines, more variety of groceries, more variety of
beverages;juices, beer and wine and we have not heard of a complaint
when we've mentioned that.
Mr. Walsh: You may not have been involved, but what was the reason in 1992 to
terminate the SDM license?
Mr. Smith: At that time the Kmart Corporation thought it was not in their best interest
to carry beer and wine. The Chairman of the Board, Joe Antonini, was
making those decisions. Now the Chairman of the Board, Floyd Hall, and
the new thinking, they feel that this is the time now to start carrying these
types of items.
Mr. Alanskas: Because you are right next to a mall, you have a lot of young people
floating around the mall and going through Kmarts, and because your
products are so popular and your checkout counters are so busy, how
would you police people that are underage to buy beer?
15793
Mr. Smith: In our training period, that is part of our personnel training, that they have
to check for age, check the license. Also our operators have to be a certain
age before they can sell it. They have to call a supervisor over, or
someone of older status, to come and ring it up.
Mr. Alanskas: If that happens, and you have between 5% and 10% of sales,
wouldn't that slow your process of taking care of your customers that are
waiting in line for other products?
Mr. Smith: I would hope the whole process would be speeded up by the proper
training. This is one of those things you have to live with. We do have
teenagers try and get cigarettes all the time, but we do stop them on that.
Mr. Piercecchi: Having beer and wine at a Kmart might be somewhat of a
convenience for your operation, but don't you think it creates a hardship
on the stores? There will be three within a half mile of this site which
really rely on beer and wine to survive, so it's really a hardship for them
and just a convenience to you.
Mr. Smith: I can't speak for those other stores, but yes we do try to make our
customers one stop shopping.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition tonight?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-9-2-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-180-97 RESOLVED that, the City pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 28, 1997 on Petition 97-9-2-
26 by K-Mart Corporation requesting waiver use approval for a SDM
license for an existing store on the South side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 35, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 97-9-2-26 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the 15794
'Nor proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the Zoning Ordinance
standard set forth in Section 11.03(r)(1) with respect to the requirement
that there be at least a 500 foot separation between SDM licensed
establishments; and
3) That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDM licensed
facilities in this area of the City.
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: You have ten days to appeal this decision to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-9-2-
27 by Dan Bywalec requesting waiver use approval to operate a landscape
contracting business with outdoor storage of equipment and materials on property
located on the South side of Industrial Drive between Wayne Road and Levan
Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. McCann: We have a letter from the petitioner dated October 21 regarding this
petition requesting a delay of action. Is there anyone that is here tonight
on this petition? We will open this petition to anyone who wishes to speak
for or against this petition.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-9-2-27 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-181-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to take no further action and thereby close their files on Petition 97-9-2-27
by Dan Bywalec requesting waiver use approval to operate a landscape
contracting business with outdoor storage of equipment and materials on
15795
property located on the south side of Industrial Drive between Wayne
Road and Levan Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 28.
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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Final Plat
Approval for Castle Woods Subdivision to be located on the south side of Lyndon
Avenue between Newburgh Road and Stonehouse Avenue in the SE 1/4 of
Section 19.
Mr. McCann: The Preliminary Plat for the referenced subdivision was approved by
Council on January 29, 1997. The subdivision consists of 9 lots all
meeting or exceeding the zoning ordinance regulations of RUF. We have
received letters from City Clerk and the City Engineer indicating that all
financial obligations have been taken care of The City Engineer has
approved the Final Plat.
Mr. Nagy: I would add that the subdivision is substantially constructed, the pavement
is in place, the lots have been properly graded, they are currently marking
the lots. They have been developed with the Preliminary Plat as approved.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-182-97 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Castle Woods Subdivision to be located on the south side of
Lyndon Avenue between Newburgh Road and Stone house Avenue in the
SE 1/4 of Section 19 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat complies with the approved Preliminary Plat;
2) That no reporting City Department has objected to the Final Plat,
and
3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the
ICity have been taken care of
15796
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is a Motion to hold
a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend the OS zoning district to provide
for fitness centers/health clubs as waiver uses.
Mr. McCann: This is only to hold a public hearing for possible discussion in regards to
this.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-183-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held
to determine whether or not to amend the OS (Office Services) zoning
district to provide for fitness centers/health clubs as waiver uses.
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.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 751st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on September 30,
1997.
Mr. McCann: All members of the Commission were present at this meeting. If the
Commission finds these minutes satisfactory, it is suggested that they be
approved.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-184-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 751st Regular Meeting and Public
Hearing held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 1997 are
hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
15797
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 752nd Regular Meeting held on October 14, 1997.
Mr. McCann: All members of the Commission were present at this meeting with the
exception of Mr. Hale. If the commission finds these minutes satisfactory,
it is suggested that they be approved.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved, it was
#10-185-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 752nd Regular Meeting by the City
Planning Commission held on October 14, 1997 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Walsh, Koons, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Hale
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Beacon Sign Company, on behalf of Kmart, requesting approval
for signage for the store located at 33400 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This is a Sign Permit Application for the store located at Seven Mile and
Farmington Roads. They have an existing Kmart logo sign over the entrance of
their store. What they would like to to is keep that K and add BIG underlined by
a swoosh. Also on the store they have three other wall signs, one for the
Pharmacy, one for the Garden shop and one for Auto Service. Presently over each
of these signs is a Kmart appendix sign. What they would like to do is to get it
down to conforming square footage. They would remove each of these Kmart
signs. Because the sign package is in excess of what they are allowed, they had to
go to the Zoning Board for a variance and what is before you tonight is what was
approved by the Zoning Board. They are requesting approval for four wall signs,
509 sq.ft.
Mr. McCann: We told the petitioner he did not have to return tonight as there were no
objections to this particular sign package.
15798
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-186-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Beacon Sign
Company, on behalf of Kmart, requesting approval for signage for the
store located at 33400 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Beacon Sign Company as
received by the Planning Commission on October 6, 1997 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That all signage for this store shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1)hour after the store closes.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Revision to
Petition 96-4-2-14 which received wiaver use approval to construct a 20 screen
movie theater o property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and
Eight Mile Road. It's part of the Pentagon Entertainment Center. What
they are requesting is approval of the Landscape Plan. Because the theatre
parking takes up the majority of the site, the landscape plan is the majority
of the site. You have Champp's Restaurant, J. Alexander's and the hotel.
Champp's and the hotel have already been approved for their site for their
building. J. Alexander is just getting approval for their landscaping. What
they are showing is trees around the perimeter of the site, also a tree-lined
entrance for the site. There is a court area with a fountain nicely
landscaped. Also the rention pond area will be fully landscaped. On the
site, the north elevation and the south elevation would have most of the
landscaping which would consist of ornamental trees, low lining type of
shrubbery, and also landscaping along the sidewalk. They are also
requesting approval to revise their elevation plans. There is an Art Deco
look around the entrance. There is brick along the first floor of the
entrance with decorative dryvit along the remaining top portion of the
theatre. There are two towers on both sides of the entrance topped by two
large globes with armatures. The entrance area bows out with a canopy.
15799
Gary Jonna, President of Jonna Realty Ventures, 1533 North Woodward Avenue,
Bloomfield Hills: As was mentioned in the staff presentation, this
package that was submitted to you represents the completion of the project
meaning the final completion of the landscape plans. It also includes the
final locations and fixture selections of all of the site lighting, pedestrian
lighting, and also includes in much greater detail, the plaza in which the
area that will include the fountain and the area where some of the public
events will take place. Gerry Gutierrez of Gould Evans Associates,
representing AMC can provide you with further details. The entegrity of
the project has not changed in terms of the open spaces, the pedestrian
network, the campus concept that we conceived, the interaction between
the buildings, the water feature along the walkway. What we have done is
brought to life in much greater detail is the landscaping and the other
exterior features of the project.
Mr. Piercecchi: I assume this is your economy plan this time around. For instance,
when I look at this background here, I see that you are wrapping around
34' this time. You took off 86' of wraparound on the north and south
portions of the building. You reduced the height by 4' which is roughly
1800 sq. ft. of brick that you are taking out.
Gerry Gutierrez, Project Manager, Gould Evens Associates: As Mr. Piercecchi
mentioned, the revised elevations do show a reduction in height along the
.., base of the brick we were showing. The rationale for that is that we felt
that the original height, which was 16' high, was just too high for the scale
of the pedestrian as they walk along the front of the building. We felt that
bringing it down to 12' was a much friendlier scale for pedestrians. It was
32' high to the top of the parapet.
Mr. Pierchecchi: It would be half if you left it at 16'. I think that's a better
relationship. That's what you agreed to at City Council the first time
around. How can you justify that?
Mr. Gutierrez: There were some previous discussions that we had with the Commission.
I think there were a lot of good ideas that came out of that meeting. We
felt that we were able to respond to some of the suggestions and we then
extended the brick on the north and south elevations and we felt it
strenghtened the north and south and also served to break down the
"plainness" the Commission felt we needed to address. So we have added
an additional 35' length of masonry veneer on the north and south
elevations. Masonry veneer is the same as brick veneer.
Mr. Piercecchi: You talk about cast slabs. Are they going to be complimentary to
the brick color, or are they going to be cement color?
r..
15800
Mr. Gutierrez: The colors that you see here are fairly close to what will be the colors of
the building, a fairly rich teakwood-type color and a light brown, tan color.
Mr. Alanskas: From the original site plan and now what you want to do, I think before
with all that brick it was kind of blasé. From my viewpoint, I think you
are trying to spruce it up a little bit. If you look at the Southfield complex,
it's so glitzy and we didn't want that much glare in our project. I think
this is a very good looking building.
Mr. Hale: Are we doing signage as part of this as well?
Mr. Nagy: That will come before you as a separate package.
Mr. Hale: So the neon issue, is that considered part of the signage or part of the
building?
Mr. Nagy: It's on the exterior of the building and it's part of the sign package.
Mr. Gutierrez: I will extend the design portion of the building. As we mentioned last
week, we had done some additional work to the plaza, especially the area
in the front of the middle portion of the building. This is sort of a
continuing refinement to our approach to the site design and the building
design. We see it as a whole. As the plaza started to get developed, we
... saw an opportunity to extend the design treatment in the Plaza and perhaps
have the effect of what is going on inside the theatre. We see a lot of
excitement and a lot of dynamic use of this Plaza for both the users of the
site and the users of the theatre, so we felt that was something that was
very important for this development.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. McCann closed
the hearing on this matter.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Koons and approved, it was
#10-188-97 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Revision to Petition 96-4-2-14, which received
waiver use approval to construct a 20-screen movie theater on property
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile
Roads in the SW 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Johnson
Johnson& Roy Inc. as received by the Planning Commission on
October 14, 1997 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
15801
2. That the Building Landscape Plan marked Sheet L201 prepared by
Gould Evans Associates as received by the Planning Commission
on October 20,1997 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded areas and all plant materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A201
prepared by Gould Evans Associates as received by the Planning
Commission on October 28, 1997 is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Alanskas, Walsh, Koons
NAYS: Piercecchi, Hale
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Walsh: I think what you have done is improved the appearance of the building and
the landscaping. When changes are for the betterment, I always encourage
a petitioner to come back, and I think you've done that.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Review Master
Deed and Revision to Petition 96-10-2-28 by Paul DePalma requesting waiver use
approval to construct detached condominiums (to be known as Rosedale Gardens
Estates Condominiums) on property located on the west side of Hubbard Road
north of West Chicago in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34.
Mr. McCann: This is a situation where during the course of the process of the petition,
the City Council amended the Ordinance creating a new section of the
Ordinance known as Site Condominium. We told the petitioner he would
not have to be here this evening.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
15802
#10-188-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Revision to Petition 96-10-2-28 by Paul DePalma
requesting waiver use approval to construct detached condominiums (to be
known as Rosedale Gardens Estates Condominiums) on property located
on the west side of Hubbard Road north of West Chicago in the NW 1/4 of
Section 34 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan and Master Deed complies with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapters
16.04- 16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, and Article XX of
Ordinance No. 543, Sections 20.01-20.06 of that ordinance.
2. That the site condominium plan conforms to design, layout and
improvement standards as provided in the City of Livonia
Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hale: We do want to welcome Mr. Shane back. We are glad to see him here.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 753rd Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on October 28, 1997 was adjourned at 10:12 PM.
c ) .:
�> _>
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
/du ri
i
r.►