HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-12-16 15818
MINUTES OF THE 755th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 16, 1997, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 755th 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 97-9-1-17 by
Stanley and Antonina Kuzon requesting to rezone property located on the
south side of Clarita Avenue between Middlebelt Road and Melvin
Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 11 from R-5 (One Family Residential-
100'x150' min. lot size)to R-1 (One Family Residential-60'x120' min. lot
size).
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 the Engineering Division stating they have no
objections to the proposed development. There is Sanitary Sewer and
Water main available to the site, although the existing roadway will need
to be removed to access the utilities. There is a storm sewer available at
15819
the west end of the property for drainage purposes. That's signed by
David Lear, Civil Engineer 1.
ss.
Stanley Kuzon, 29767 Clarita: I would like to build some one family houses on the
property.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Kuzon, do you own the property now, or is this contingent upon the
rezoning?
Mr. Kuzon: I own the property.
Raymond Gawel, 29725 Clarita: This is the only piece of vacant property on the street.
It would be better if we could get some homes in there because right now
the apartments across the way throw grass and everything else on the street
and it's difficult to supervise. It would be a good idea to have some
homes put in there.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, is there a reason why you want to go to an R-1 instead of a larger lot
size like an R-2 or R-3?
Mr. Kazon: There could be more houses built on the lots.
Mr. Alanskas: So it would be a financial reason.
Mr. Kazon: Yes.
Mr. McCann: One of the things we did when we looked at this is to try to fit this
property with the rest of the area, and with an R-2 with 70' minimums,
you would be allowed four lots and this would also fit with the rest of the
home sites along Clarita. Would you be willing to go to an R-2?
Mr. Kazon: Most of the houses are R-1 on Clarita.
Mr. McCann: To the south of you, but everything else along Clarita is R-2.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-9-1-17 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Walsh and approved, it was
#12-196-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 16, 1997 on Petition 97-9-1-17
by Stanley and Antonina Kuzon requesting to rezone property located on
the south side of Clarita Avenue between Middlebelt Road and Melvin
•.. Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 11 from R-5 to R-1, the City Planning
15820
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-
9-1-17 be denied with respect to the proposed change to the R-1 zoning
ro,. classification. The City Planning Commission does recommend to the
City Council a proposed change to the R-2 zoning classification for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area; and
3) That the proposed zoning district will allow a reasonable
development of the subject property into single family residential lots
consistent with the majority of existing lots 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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Walsh, Hale, Koons, McCann
__ NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
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 97-11-1-
19 by Manor Care Health Services, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on
the north side of Seven Mile, east of Mayfield in the SW 1/4 of Section 3 from R-
3A (One Family Residential)to R-9 (Housing for Elderly).
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 dated November 21, 1997
stating that the only concern that the Engineering Division has to the
proposal is the amount of right-of-way to the Seven Mile side of the
property. The right-of-way to the south side of the property is currently 33
feet. This will need to be widened to 60 feet, thus requiring an additional
27 feet be dedicated to Wayne County. The developer's plans reflect this
change in right-of-way, and as long as this process occurs, the Engineering
15821
Division has no objections to the proposal. Signed by David Lear, Civil
Engineer.
We also have a fax from Russell Rheaume and Katherine Rheaume as
follows: Both Kathy and I reside across the street at 32405 Seven Mile
Road. We are all in favor of the proposed rezoning from R-3A to R-9.
Charles Tangora: I represent Manor Care. Manor Care is a publicly traded company
on the New York stock exchange. They have over 200 units throughout
the continental United States, although not in every state. It's probably in
more than half the states. There are different types of assisted living. This
particular one is assisted living for Alzheimer's disease. The facility that
is proposed to be built here is a one story, colonial type of building. It has
62 beds. It is a very low intensity use. The people who are here obviously
do not drive. There is very little traffic. The only traffic would be from
visitors or the help. The help during the day would be somewhere
between 10 and 12 people. Other than that, there would be some type of
delivery traffic. There would be a very low volume of noise. The people
who are there would be under supervision generally. They do have
outside areas that are greenbelts. The people will be out for fresh air. It is
not a medical type of facility. If there is any type of medical emergency,
they usually bring doctors over to the facility, or take them to the local
hospitals. I have two people with me tonight. One is Mr. Tagerian,
Director of Development for Manor Care. We also have Tim Germain; he
is the engineer from the local engineering company. I know this is not for
site plan approval, although we do have a site plan. It's an L-shaped
building with a lot of landscaping. When we get into site plan approval,
we will be happy to share those site plans with you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is this a non-profit facility?
Mr. Tangora: It is a profit company.
Mr. Alanskas: So this will go on our tax rolls.
Mr. Tangora: Yes. There is no government assistance. It is a public company and on
the tax rolls.
Mrs. Koons: I have a question for the other gentleman. Do the patients or residents
have to have a medical diagnosis of Alzheimer's?
Mr. Tagerian: Yes. They are admitted with their doctor's recommendation and before
they move in, a full range of their physical requirements are evaluated.
Not all Alzheimers are an evolving disease, so the first few years it is
fairly light so you don't need very intensive supervision or assistance.
15822
Normally the first couple of years of the infliction, most people are able to
stay with their loved ones at home. After the middle stage, which is the
care we provide, they start needing assistance. Once the evaluation is
completed, we would put them on a daily routine.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Margaret Litener, Executive Director of Court Yard Manor of Livonia which is adjacent
to this parcel. I'm here on behalf of the residents that currently reside at
Courtyard Manor. They live in a very nice wooded area right now where
they enjoy the trees, the wild animals. The residents sit on their porch
during the day, and one of their activities is to feed the bunnies in the
morning at 10:00. Because I am dedicated to the elderly population, my
concerns with the rezoning is that this would take away some of the peace
and tranquillity that they currently have.
Mr. McCann: Have you ever made an offer to purchase the property prior to it being
sold?
Ms. Litener: I am not in the management part of the company that would be doing that.
I can't answer that question.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Tangora, how much of a buffer will there remain between your
easterly property line and your parking lot?
Mr. Tangora: 35 feet.
Mr. McCann: It won't affect the rear building at all,just the front building. You have a
35' easement. We will go further into that at the site plan approval.
Tonight is just the rezoning.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-11-1-19 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-197-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 16, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-11-
1-19 by Manor Care Health Services, Inc. requesting to rezone property
located on the north side of Seven Mile, east of Mayfield in the SW 1/4 of
Section 3 from R-3A to R-9, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-11-1-19 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
15823
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
`.. harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with adjacent
zoning and uses in the area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
development of additional senior housing which is needed in the
community.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. 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 97-11-1-
20 by Steven and Pam Pokornicki, Sonja Styles, Robert M. Carter and Paul W.
Cox requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Oporto between
Morlock and Norfolk in the NE 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA (Rural Urban Farm)
to R-2 (One Family Residential 70'x120' Lot Min.).
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated November 21, 1997 from our Engineering Division
as follows: Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. It is recommended that the
proposed development be required to dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way to
the City of Livonia on the East side of the properties involved. The
additional footage would be required to properly improve the right-of-way
allowing access to the proposed development. Also, please be advised that
in order to further develop the affected properties, the developer would be
responsible for extending the existing public utilities to serve the lots.
Other than the right-of-way deficiencies, the Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposed rezoning.
We also have a protest petition signed by 31 persons stating the
undersigned are vehemently opposed to the request to change the existing
zoning of RUF to R-2, One Family Residential. With the exception of 4
residents on Navin, the other 27 give their address along Purlingbrook
Avenue.
15824
That's the extent of our correspondence.
Pam Pokorniki, 31641 Bobrich, Livonia. We own two lots east of Oporto and West of
Oporto. The other petitioners who are seated, Bob and Linda Carter and
Paul and Eva Cox have also asked me to mention a few things for them.
All the petitioners are the landowners themselves. First we want to say
that we are here only to rezone our vacant land north of Norfolk. The
other side of Oporto is already zoned R-2. Some of the people are here to
get the correct information about this because we understand that some of
them might have been misled as to what we are requesting. We are not
here to design or plan any of the roads that some of the people have been
led to believe we are trying to do. We are not here to design anyone else's
land south of Norfolk. Some of the people think that if they say no to the
rezoning that there won't be any homes there, but Oporto is a platted road
and eventually there will be homes there. The layout of the homes comes
before you at a public hearing later anyway with the developer. We also
have a few people here I think who want Oporto in so that they can access
their back lots. They live on Melvin and they want to access their back
lots that are on Oporto. The reason we the landowners are here to rezone
the property ourselves is to make it worthwhile for a developer to work
with. The road and sewer and water costs to improve Oporto are very high
as you know, and to only get five homes in there is not going to be
worthwhile for a developer. We feel instead of selling it as RUF land to a
`..� developer and then they come in and rezone it to R-2 anyway, we have the
opportunity to ask you to help us with that so that we can get some of the
profit instead of waiting for the developer to come before you. Some of
the petitioners do plan on living on the front part of the property facing
Purlingbrook and we are all looking to find a good developer for that land
because they intend to live there still. We are talking to Leo Soave and
other quality Livonia builders. Finally, we feel that well planned new
homes instead of a vacant field that has no value will only help increase
the value for everyone. There's actually two new homes going in at
Morlock that are in the R-2 area that are going in for the $200,000 range.
We ask that you recommend us to the Council to get this area going. We
have a petition that, after we found out there was a petition going around
way down the road further away from us, we went around and got people
to sign a petition on our behalf and we have that here. We felt that it was
important to see that these people who have signed are very close to where
we are at.
Mr. Alanskas: Where did you say you live?
Pam Pokornicki: I am not one of the neighbors now. I live on Bobrich now.
Mr. Alanskas: And what size lot do you have there?
15825
Ms. Pokornicki: About 100'x180'.
r..
Steve Pokornicki, 31641 Bobrich, Livonia: I just want to say that I think RUF for that
particular area is a thing of the past. It used to be necessary for septic and
wells and farming of some sort, but again it is just a field and it is not
being used. The land is contiguous to R-2 zoning. It is most logical to
have both sides of Oporto have the same type of zoning to have some
continuity. Again, we are not asking to rezone other people's property.
We are emphasizing that it is ours. I have drawings from the Engineering
Department that Mr. Galindo and Mr. Clark made for developing Oporto.
The problem people had with putting that road in is that they didn't want
to bear the cost of it. If it is rezoned and a developer takes a look at it, I
think they would develop that road and possibly pay for it.
Sonja Styles, 20224 Purlingbrook, Livonia: I am one of the petitioners. My husband and
I intend to live in our home on Purlingbrook and we are asking for the
rezoning only of our vacant property in the back of our home that adjoins
to the R-2 zoning on Oporto. I just want to mention that our family has
owned and maintained this property in Livonia for over three generations.
This wasn't a light decision made for us. We have no intention of leaving
the neighborhood. I would also like to emphasize that when we try to find
a developer for the property, we would want the highest quality because I
` . am going to have to look at what is in my backyard. Our family has
owned it for over 50 years. We have seen it go from a Township into a
City. I have seen it go from dirt roads to paved roads, from open fields to
houses in the back of my property. North of my property is an apartment
complex now. I have gone from wells to septic tanks to city water. I have
gone from being able to drive 4-wheelers, dirt bikes and snowmobiles to
not being allowed this privilege any more. I have also gone from having
small farming gardens to the destruction of our gardens as more people
have moved into our area. From being able to burn our tree limbs and
now not being able to burn anything in Livonia. What I am saying now is
that with all these things having gone, it is only fair that the people who
have tended this land all these years be able to make a profit off the land.
Since I have no desire to move from the neighborhood, and since my
husband and I will be looking at home sites that will be eventually placed
on our land, it is with full understanding that we seek a good developer for
our property. The cost of paving Oporto is high, and R-2 makes it
possible for the developer to absorb the cost of the road and not us. We
are only asking to rezone our property, not the property south on
Purlingbrook. I strongly urge you to grant this request as Livonia has
undergone many changes through the years. This is only one change that
will be for the betterment of the City as well as the home owners.
15826
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Michael Smigulek, an attorney in the State of Michigan, P#20611, 20325 Melvin,
Livonia: I am representing Steven J. Smigulek, my nephew. My nephew
resides at 20325 Melvin. He is also the owner of two contiguous lots
behind the proposed development. As to the R-2 development, we are not
concerned about that. We are concerned about the Oporto issue. When
my nephew purchased this property, he was given an easement, ingress
and egress, into that property which on a separate lot has a huge garage.
After he stored all his mechanic's tools into that garage, the City, on the
complaint of one neighbor, came and put a barricade in there blocking off
the only ingress and egress to the man's property. We are here asking that
a 30' area be dedicated for enhancement of Oporto as a public street, and
developed as a public street which would give access, perhaps not to
Wesley Richards here because his property is just a little bit north. I
believe the properties we are talking about are lots 181, 180, 179, 178.
The 177 and 176 lots were developed by switching them sideways and
facing Morlock. So our concern is principally what do we do with Oporto.
Do we get a road in there and do we get an ingress and egress as to the
contiguous property owners on the east side of Oporto.
Mr. McCann: Sir, we are dealing with the rezoning issue of whether or not it is proper to
rezone this from RUF to R-2. The Engineering Department said that if
this were to go through, they recommended dedicating 30 feet of right-of-
way to the City on the east side of the properties involved before it could
be developed.
Mr. Smigulek:It was also a stipulation in the purchase of Lots 182 and 183 that are east
of Oporto that are owned by the Pokornicki family that there would be a
30' easement dedicated for the development. That was our concern, do we
get Oporto street in.
Don Gould, 2030 Purlingbrook, Livonia: My friend Sonja, I beat her out by one
generation. I am the fourth generation in my house. I am 75 years old. I
have coworkers that work with me who have moved to Howell and
Brighton to have what I have today and they always tell me how lucky I
am to have a farm in the city. My grandchildren see the wild life that is
back there, and I think we are the last of the Mohicans. People are
changing for profit, well that's an individual thing. As you'll hear from
other neighbors,they will say it will not affect us in the south, but next
year someone else will want to change it. You have to voice your opinion.
I think everyone is clear that Oporto doesn't go through to Eight Mile,
there's no road there. My property is also inaccessible, and I like it that
�•- way.
15827
Marsha Heads, 20210 Purlingbrook: I think my property would be highly affected by
more houses being put in there. The biggest lots possible would have the
No.. least amount of traffic going through there. The more houses, the more
traffic. It will totally change the character of my yard, my neighborhood.
I am fairly new to the neighborhood, three years. I bought that house
because of the character of the neighborhood. I want to see it changed as
little as possible.
Kathleen Poppenger, 20218 Purlingbrook, Livonia: We purchased this lot from the
siblings of the Pokornicki's. The Pokornicki's at that time lived in the
house, remodeled it and parceled off the land into two acres and then
parceled off the back half and again right after our transaction in the
closing of the house. Part of the sale of the house, and the reason we came
to the area was because of the country in the city. We knew that because
of half acre zoning all that could be built would be two houses on the half
acre lots. Now because of this there could be four because the
Pokornicki's, unbeknownst to us, owned the other two lots here on
Oporto. Then we have the Styles directly north of us who will be selling
three quarters of an acre jutting into us, adjacent to the north. So this does
affect us directly as far as the character of the neighborhood. It is not
consistent with the RUF. Eight houses could go on these lots and they
could develop the land as requested. Let me turn to another point. These
two streets, Melvin and Purlingbrook, you can see that any builder would
.�. make an access road from Purlingbrook and also from Oporto to access
this new subdivision. With RUF zoning, we could probably fit 8 to 10
houses in there. If you increase that to R-2, you could possibly double or
triple that because all of these properties are going to be sold jointly to one
builder. Then we look at the increase of traffic on the street. Purlingbrook
and Melvin were zoned RUFA a long time ago. Purlingbrook was paved
about ten years ago. There is nothing to stop traffic from going 40 miles
an hour. It is a 25 mile an hour street, but we have no street lights, we
have no sidewalks. We spent our first Halloween in the house this year
and we had to run back to the house to get a lantern because the cars were
still going 40 miles an hour and kids are on the street with bicycles. Kids
from the elementary school,junior high and the high school are all in this
neighborhood. If we increase it this much, we are going to increase the
accidents. It is already a hazard on Purlingbrook. The petitioners are not
only asking for a rezoning of their property, they are asking to want to
affect the entire neighborhood as far as increased traffic. We already have
the mall, we already have Eight Mile and we really want the City to look
at that because ultimately if you think we need sidewalks, we need street
lights,that means we pay for it.
15828
Kristi Richards, 20339 Melvin, Livonia: The only thing I want to add here is that I am
for the road going through. I am for the rezoning. The property is not
„r,. wooded, it is totally bare of trees. It is not pretty, it is just an empty piece
of vacant land back there that none of these people can do anything with
now. I think it would be profitable for the City of Livonia to go forth with
letting them put houses back here. Two and a half years ago, we did run
into some problems with the builders running the roads and the barricade
being put up. We would like to see this happen; we would like to see the
road go in so that we can access our property again.
Resident, 20178 Purlingbrook: I moved into the area three years ago. The main reason I
moved into the area is for the tranquillity in the City. I am opposed to the
rezoning because it will be at my next door neighbors before I know it. I
want to stop it before it gets that close. There's a lot of wild life that
resides back there. The back 75' of my property is wooded. We have
pheasants and everything else and my family enjoys watching the wild life
and that will all go away if a developer goes in there and clears the land.
Steven Pokornicki: The density that the people are afraid of- one of the scenarios that
the developer could do is create cluster housing to maintain more open
space.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-11-1-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, supported by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-198-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 16, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-11-
1-20 by Steven and Pam Pokornicki, Sonja Styles, Robert M. Carter and
Paul W. Cox requesting to rezone property located on the west side of
Oporto between Morlock and Norfolk in the NE 1/4 of Section 2 from
RUFA to R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 97-11-1-20 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the existing zoning district and uses north, south and west
of the subject property;
2) That the proposed change of zoning would change the character of
the area which is primarily large lot residential; and
15829
3) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with a newly
proposed zoning ordinance amendment which is meant to preserve such
`, "rural"type development as is represented by the subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hale: It is always a difficult decision when you have some landowners who have
owned property for many generations and want to develop it which they
have every right to do. Our job is to take a look at surrounding zoning
areas to make sure that it is going to be consistent. My concern here is
some of the other areas. As we mentioned in the first part of the
resolution, the other existing zoning districts north, west and south do not
appear to be consistent with what you are requesting as R-2. I do want to
mention to you that I respect the fact that you do have a right to develop
your land. Our job is to take a look at some of the surrounding zoning
districts. My opinion is that it is not consistent with what you are
requesting.
'...... Mr. Piercecchi: The City Council and the Planning Commission wants you to
make a profit on the sale of your property. However, it can be developed.
It can be developed in RUF. Nobody is stopping the development of that
property. We don't think it should be developed with smaller homes. As
Mr. Hale pointed out, we are putting together right now an ordinance
which is going to help preserve those areas in Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas: We do have some R-2 to the right of that, but it is a smaller area. We have
a much larger RUF area, and I am afraid that this could be like a domino
effect, going R-2, R-2, R-2. I think keeping RUF is the proper zoning.
Mr. McCann: I would like to say that the Planning Commission is reviewing an
ordinance and will pass it on to the Council regarding the RUF left in the
City. The City is over 95% developed. We, as the Planning Commission,
after reviewing the Land Use Plan, determined that the limited number of
RUF space available in the City should be attempted to be kept if at all
reasonable. I think as the property members have said, we are looking at
property here that has been in families for generations. I would hate to see
us turning that away because there is encroachment in the area. I think
that because the RUF in this area has been around for a long time, it
should be kept in that form.
15830
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-10-2-
28 by Rite Aid of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM
(packaged beer and wine) license and SDD license (packaged liquor) in
connection with an existing store located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile
and Newburgh Roads in the NW 1/4 of Section 5.
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 the Engineering Division stating they have no
objections to the proposal. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Fred Lovejoy, 427 South Capitol, Lansing, Michigan: I am the Assistant Secretary for
Rite-Aide and legal counsel in regards to liquor license matters. I have
with me tonight Tim Cooper, store manager, and J. R. Reyes, Liquor
Distribution Manager. I would like to point out that the characteristics of
the site now satisfy Section 19.06 of the General Use Waiver Standards.
The allowing of selling liquor, beer and wine in this store will not change
the character of the neighborhood. The area to the south is residential as
is. The area to the west is highway and Meijers on the other side. It is a
new facility, a full service pharmacy outlet of the new Rite-Aid style. It
has very reasonable hours. I think there is a need in the area to better serve
the neighbors on this side of the highway.
Mr. Alanskas: How many Rite-Aids to you have in the Metropolitan area?
Mr. Reyes: About 200. 150 stores have beer and wine and 81 have SDD licenses.
Nancy Gaston, 38685 Jahn Drive: I'm not sure if you are aware that there is a day care
center across the street. It's all residential everywhere else. I think it
should be looked into - the problems with the kinds of people who
frequent Meijers and the problems Northville has been having. I feel that
the people who will be purchasing any kind of liquor from the store would
not necessarily be people living in the neighborhood. You have Kroger's,
you have a beer and wine store on Seven Mile and Newburgh and Meijers
also. I would be against having that go into the facility there.
Mr. Lovejoy: I would point out that there is not another SDD and SDM license within
another half mile. Rite-Aid is not a party store. It is a wide-open clean
complex. Beer and wine and liquor only comprises about 7-10% of gross
sales, but it acts as a unique advertising tool to get people into the store.
,---i The Rite-Aid personnel at the store are internally trained by the Rite Aid
staff to a corporate program. They are also trained in the TAM program.
Each employee is given, on a monthly basis, handouts with regard to
15831
selling to minors, and each employee is notified at the inception of
employment that the sale to a minor will result in immediate termination.
Rite Aid has a very good record with the MLCC with regard to sales to
minors. Tim Cooper, the store manager, operated the Walled Lake store
for over two years and never had a violation there. Rite Aid has recently
installed a new policy where the manager, if a violation should occur more
than twice, the manager is held responsible as well as the employee. Rite
Aid has a very affirmative action toward making sure that sales to those
under 21 do not happen in their stores.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-10-2-28 closed.
On a motion duly made by Robert Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale and approved, it was
#12-199-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 16, 1997 on Petition 97-10-2-28
by Rite Aid of Michigan requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM
license and SDD license in connection with an existing store located on
the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Newburgh Roads in the NW 1/4 of
Section 5, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 97-10-2-28 be approved as to the use of an SDM
license only, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed usage of an SDM license at the subject location
complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
utilization of an SDM license;
3) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed utilization of an SDD license at the subject location complies
with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
4) That the proposed utilization of an SDD license is incompatible to
and detrimental to the Whispering Willows Golf Course and the
Greenmeade Historical Village; and
5) That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDD licensed
facilities in the area.
15832
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. Walsh: I would just like to indicate that I intend to vote against this motion. I
believe that the petitioner has carried their weight with respect to the SDD
license.
Mr. Alanskas: The problem I see is that we have a golf course here and we are trying to
keep liquor off that golf course. A lot of times people say, hey let's get a
pint of booze and go on the golf course and have a good time. They go on
the golf course and just tear it up which costs the City a lot of money.
Also on Greenmeade we have more and more things going on there and I
can't see having a liquor license that close to Greenmeade. Beer and wine
I can accept, but not liquor.
Mr. McCann: I look at this area and I look at the proposed use whether or not the SDD
would fit in the area. You do have a child care center directly across the
street. You have a subdivision kiddy-corner to it. Directly behind it is a
City-owned golf course with children's leagues in the summer and senior
leagues. You have Greenmeade next to it, a historical park that is set up
for children's activities both summer and winter. They have parks,they
have functions. I don't believe it has been shown that there is a necessary
need in that corner. As you said, you have alcohol available at Seven Mile
and Newburgh, at Eight and Haggerty, east of Farmington and Eight Mile.
There are sufficient locations within the area to purchase liquor. In this
instance, I believe it is in the best interest of the welfare of the citizens that
the SDD license be denied.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Hale, Koons, McCann
NAYS: Walsh
ABSENT: None
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 97-10-2-
29 by Bill Knapp's Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to remodel and
add a vestibule, canopy and outdoor seating area to an existing restaurant located
on the south side of Six Mile Road between I-275 and Laurel Park Drive South in
the NE 1/4 of Section 18.
15833
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 the proposal.
Jack Knolls, Dietrich, Bailey and Associates, 107 S. Main Street, Plymouth: With me
also is John Queen and Jim Powers of Bill Knapp's. This is a store that
has been in existence for over 20 years at the current location. What we
are proposing is a complete rehab of the existing building. That consists
of a new entrance canopy and a vestibule entrance on the front of the
building. That's an additional 70 sq. ft. to the already 7600 sq. ft.
building. We are also proposing an outdoor seating area at the northeast
corner of the building that will seat approximately 16 people. The work in
general consists of a complete redo on the exterior and interior of the
building. The parking lot does not change at all. As you know, there is
existing landscaping on the site. The only changes are to the building
structure itself. The changes that are proposed are the new image that Bill
Knapp's is attempting to create in all their stores. New burgundy and teal
colors on the exterior, complete redo on the windows. The seating is
actually an increase of 11 overall. There is a decrease of 5 inside and an
increase of 16 for the outside seating.
Mr. Alanskas: I go to Bill Knapp's quite often. Do you have any at the present time with
seating on the outside in the summertime in this area?
Mr. Powers, CEO of Bill Knapp's, 110 Knave Drive, Battle Creek, Michigan: No. Just
in Ohio.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there a demand for this?
Mr. Powers: There is a demand. A lot of people like to sit outside and it's an attempt to
address those patrons who desire that.
Mr. Alanskas: What time would that outside area be open in the evening?
Mr. Powers: The patio is open the same time as the restaurant. There is lighting there
and the patio is accessed from the interior, it is not accessed from the
exterior.
Mr. Alanskas: Would you have people taking care of all the papers and whatever would
be blowing away? That's a problem with outdoor seating.
15834
Mr. Powers: That is not a problem in our restaurants. We do not use that type of
service. The service outside and the maintenance and care is the same as
inside.
Mrs. Koons: What kind of barrier or gate or fence would there be around the patio to
protect people from the parking lot?
Mr. Knoll: There is an iron fence, 43"tall, with brick columns that prevent people
from traversing back and forth.
Leland Lenehan, 16690 Blue Skies, president of the Homeowners Association adjacent to
this proposal: We have two problems with this proposal. All outside
eating establishments are always trash generators. I know they have a
fence, but it is not a good fence as far as stopping trash. They will have
yews around and that may be a problem. The major problem we have is
that this restaurant has a severe safety problem. We have brought this
problem to the attention of the Wayne County Road Commission and the
Livonia Traffic Commission. Wayne County told us they are studying this
whole proposal. The City Traffic Commission doesn't want to do
anything until they see what Wayne County does. The problem is that
right in front of the restaurant there are three lanes of traffic going east,
and three lanes of traffic going west and the posted speed limit is 45 MPH.
There are four crossovers close to that. At rush hour there are three lanes
of traffic coming right at you wherever you are trying to cross over and
trying to get across is very exciting. One part of the problem that Bill
Knapp's could control at that site is that the main entrance and exit is one
car length from Six Mile Road so that if anyone goes in while someone is
coming out stops, and if you want to cross the eastbound portion of Six
Mile Road when someone is stopped there, you can't do it. We believe
there is a severe safety problem associated with this intersection. There's
been a number of fender benders there. What we propose is that Bill
Knapp's eliminate this. There is plenty of room down here to come in.
Ground Round put in an entrance on Six Mile which seems to be effective.
Mr. Alanskas: John, do we have any problems with the Police Department there with
violations or accidents? I am not aware of it if we do.
Mr. Nagy: I am not aware of any.
Mr. Alanskas: I go there quite often, and if I wanted to go west I would turn right and
loop around because it would be hard to shoot across. I have been there a
lot of times during lunch hour and I have never seen any problems there.
15835
Mr. Lenehan: I called the Livonia Police Department to get some statistics on accidents
and they told me that most of the accidents that occur there are fender
benders, bumper to bumper and not reported.
Mr. McCann: Is it something the Traffic Commission could look at and make
recommendations? We are dealing with the building at this point and I am
not sure that changing the site plan as far as the entrance and exits are
concerned, would be appropriate.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. There is obviously a safety
problem. Our purpose tonight is to approve or not approve a building
layout. It meets parking, it meets landscaping and looks fine. There are
other sections of the City that would respond to this I am sure if they were
told about it. Have you gone to the Traffic Commission?
Mr. Lenehan: Yes, I have. The Traffic Commission agreed to our position and made that
recommendation to Wayne County Road Commission.
Mr. Nagy: I just want to point out to this gentleman that by operation of our
ordinance, our ordinance requires that restaurants be served by two means
of ingress and egress. We could move a driveway, but we could not
eliminate two means of ingress and egress. In that area you are up against
a limited access because of the freeway. The Ground Round restaurant is
beyond the limited access controls by MDOT.
Mr. Lenehan: We believe that there is a safety situation here that is going to get worse by
more traffic. We have a problem that could be easily corrected.
Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with you that something should be done about it, but the
Planning Commission cannot do anything about it.
Deborah Stafiej, 16786 Blue Skies: I like what Bill Knapp's is doing to the outside of
their building. I think it's wonderful that they are trying to improve the
existing building. The problem is with the entrance as well as that they try
and maintain the property along the side of the building that people who
are entering and exiting the facility look at. There is a boulevard with
rocks and some Christmas trees planted in it as well as some deciduous
trees that loose their leaves in the fall. Bill Knapp's has done nothing to
maintain this. About 15 years ago they were helping the subdivision cut
this small piece of grass. If they have people entering and existing and
they have an eyesore of that nature directly next to their property, you
would think they would want to do something about improving it and take
an interest in the neighborhood. The only other entrance is for the Best
Western Motel. There are major problems at this entrance because of
people coming out of Bill Knapp's and exiting out the entrance drive. On
15836
numerous occasions, people instead of cutting across this small island,
would turn into the lane of incoming traffic. It would be best for Bill
Knapp's to eliminate that before there is an accident that they would be
New
sued for.
Mr. McCann: They have to maintain two entrances by law. We can look at changing the
entrance.
Ms. Stafiej: I would strongly suggest that they look at relocating that entrance before
there is a major accident there and if someone dies and the estate follows
up through the City and Bill Knapp's legally. I would also like to see Bill
Knapp's maintain these entrance islands. I understand these islands are
City-owned. If the City does not maintain it, or cannot maintain it,then
perhaps Bill Knapp's should take an interest in maintaining it for business
purposes.
Dennis Long, 38011 Mallory Drive: There is a serious traffic concern here. There are no
street lights on that side of Six Mile. The Traffic Commission has
recommended that there be some changes. I do have one concern with the
design there, and that is with the outdoor seating. There are lots of
problems with that entrance. I am concerned that many people coming in
may have their attention taken to the outside seating. We do have a lot of
concerns with Bill Knapp's because our subdivision is used as a business
bypass primarily for customers to go to Bill Knapp's. I think their design
is good, but I am concerned with the outdoor seating. I think this portion
could be reconsidered and possibly eliminated.
Mr. Lenehan: If they move that main entrance away from Six Mile Road, they would
still have two exists and entrances.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, is there an entrance on the north side that goes to the Ground
Round that meets up with that entrance as well? Is that why the traffic
engineers placed that entrance there?
Mr. Nagy: Precisely.
Mr. Queen: Two points I would like to clarify. One, we are not increasing any spaces
within the parking lot, so as to the number of cars in and out, I don't see
where there would be any change in that. The second is that the ingress
and egress into Best Western is actually across our property, not us
accessing across Best Western's property.
Mr. Powers: We don't control the ingress and egress. That was established by the City
when we were first approved for construction, and yes, we did permit an
easement across our property for the motel in question. As for the
15837
landscaping, we will comply, and have complied through the years with
the City's requirements, and we will continue to do that.
*"' Mr. McCann: The median is owned by the City. There is nothing the City can force you
to do, but if you can help the neighbors in that subdivision to do whatever
they need to do, I am sure the residents would be appreciative.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-10-2-29 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Hale and approved, it was
#12-200-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 16, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-10-
2-29 by Bill Knapp's Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
remodel and add a vestibule, canopy and outdoor seating area to an
existing restaurant located on the south side of Six Mile Road between I-
275 and Laurel Park Drive South in the NE 1/4 of Section 18, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 97-10-2-29 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 10/14/97 prepared by DBA, Dietrich,
Bailey and Associates, P.C., architects, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Landscaping shown on the Site Plan dated 10/14/97
prepared by DBA, Dietrich, Bailey and Associates, P.C., architects, which
is hereby approved, shall be installed prior to final inspection and shall
thereafter be maintained in a healthy condition;
3) That the Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A3 and A4 dated
9/12/97 prepared by R.O.I. Design which are hereby approved shall be
adhered to; and
4) That the total number of customer seats to be placed in the outdoor
seating area shall not exceed 16 seats.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
10.06 of Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
15838
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
fter
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.
Mrs. Koons: I too think that the upgrade would be wonderful, however I do not agree
with the outside seating part of the upgrade and I will be voting against
this. I am concerned about safety, not in relationship to the cars, in
relationship to what I consider typical Bill Knapp's clientele-very young
children and elderly people. I think there may be some confusion, even
though the outdoor entrance is from the inside, that there may be people
standing around outside waving to other people. I don't think that in a
state like Michigan where outdoor dining is only a few weeks of the year
that it will hurt your business. I commend you for the upgrade, but I
cannot support the outdoor dining facilities.
Mr. Walsh: I would encourage some of the people who spoke tonight to continue their
efforts with the Traffic Commission. We are bound by what our job is
versus what the Traffic Commission is, and we are not able at this hearing
to compel Bill Knapp's to take any action, but perhaps Wayne County or
the Traffic Commission can in time take appropriate action to cure this
problem. As a former employee of this restaurant 18 years ago, and as a
patron still to this day, I think Bill Knapp's runs an excellent operation.
They are very careful and clean. They take care of their patrons, young
and old. I think that same care will be exercised in the outside eating area.
I think it is a good addition.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walsh, McCann, Piercecchi, Alanskas, Hale
NAYS: Koons
ABSENT: None
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 97-10-3-
4 by Brenda LeFebvre requesting to vacate the north 25 feet of Leon Avenue
contiguous to Lot 30 in Horton's Newburgh Subdivision located north of Ann
Arbor Road and West of Newburgh Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 31.
15839
8:55 PM: Mr. McCann passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Alanskas for this item as he
had represented one of the parties within the past year.
'e" 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 Department as follows: Pursuant to
your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. It is recommended by the Engineering Division that the northerly
25 feet of the existing Leon Avenue easement be vacated and given to the
appropriate neighboring property. In this case the appropriate neighboring
property would be the Wayne County Park located to north of the
easement. In the case that Wayne County is not interested in obtaining
this property, then the easement should be added to the property on the
south side currently owned by the petitioner. That's signed by David
Lear, Civil Engineer 1.
We also have a letter from the Wayne County Parks Division referencing
Petition 97-10-3-4: Thank you for the opportunity to review the petition
to vacate the northern 25 foot section of Leon Ave. contiguous to Lot 30 in
Horton's Newburgh Subdivision. As you know the shoreline of
Newburgh Lake and the floodway for the Rouge River is within Leon
Ave. "Right-of-Way". In review of the petition we feel it is in the best
interest of the public that the lake and floodplain areas remain in public
New ownership. Given the extensive project being undertaken to clean
Newburgh Lake through the Rouge Project, it is imperative that the
County retain riparian rights along its shoreline. This allows for the
continued management of the lake and public access to the existing storm
drains and shoreline improvements within this section of the water course.
If you have any questions, please contact the Park Office at 261-2034.
Thank you for your assistance on this matter. That is signed by Nancy
Darga, Chief of Design, Wayne County Parks Division.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here? (no) Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
speak for or against this petition? (none)
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Alanskas, Vice
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-10-3-4 closed.
Mr. Piercecchi: Wayne County is not showing favoritism in granting this.
Subsequently, Mr. Chairman, we should look at some alternate
recommendations on this. I will vote to deny this petition based entirely
on the letter received from Wayne County stating their position on the
matter.
15840
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and approved, it was
#12-201-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
December 16, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-10-
3-4 by Brenda LeFebvre requesting to vacate the north 25 feet of Leon
Avenue contiguous to Lot 30 in Horton's Newburgh Subdivision located
north of Ann Arbor Road and west of Newburgh Road in the NE 1/4 of
Section 31, the Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 97-10-3-4
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed vacating will prevent proper access to the
Newburgh Lake frontage;
2) That Wayne County objects to the subject vacating; and
3) That the subject road right-of-way is needed to provide for access
to and maintenance of the Newburgh Lake shore line in this area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code
of Ordinances.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Koons, Piercecchi, Walsh, Hale
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: McCann
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
9:05 PM: Chairman McCann returned at this time.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-11-6-
7 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend the OS (Office Services) zoning district to provide for
fitness centers/health clubs as waiver uses.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, would you give us a brief description of the amendment.
15841
Mr. Nagy: This is a language amendment to our ordinance to amend two sections of
our zoning ordinance with respect to the office district regulations of PO
which is office mid-rise zone allowing office uses in buildings over two
�.. stories not exceeding four, and also in the Office Service zone, the low rise
zone, to create a new section within the waiver use section. Waiver uses
by definition are prohibitive uses, but upon petition can find in fact that
prohibition can be waived and uses allowed. What we are addressing
tonight is whether or not those two sections should be amended to include,
as waiver uses, fitness centers or health clubs, not including reducing
salons, massage parlors and public baths, and we go forward and set
specific standards. The standards are (1) the minimum lot area
requirement for PO zone shall be five acres; 2) such use shall have direct
access to and from a thoroughfare having an existing or proposed right-of-
way width of one hundred twenty feet or more as designated on the Master
Thoroughfare Plan; 3) When such use abuts a residential district, the
required building setback from the boundary line abutting such residential
shall be at least one hundred feet; 4) the nature and design of a building
intended for such use shall be fully compatible with buildings in adjacent
or typical office areas with regard to exterior design and materials as
determined by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
`r•• Bob Currier, 38144 Vista Drive South: I urge the Commissioners to seriously consider
not approving this waiver for office services for the following reasons. I
believe this was prompted by Lifetime Fitness to construct a facility off of
Victor Parkway. It was going to be a two-story facility, I believe 80,000
sq. ft. They proposed this facility was going to be open 7 days a week, 24
hours a day. I examined some of the renderings at a Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting. I realize it has been withdrawn, but it doesn't mean it
couldn't show up somewhere else. I am a member of the Board of
Directors of the Villas Condominiums Association, and the members and
the Directors of the Association are totally opposed to that facility
primarily because they don't want to live next to something that is
operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The people who live in that
facility bought the property with the understanding that the property next
to it would be used for constructing an office. A health club that operates
non normal hours is not an office, and that is the reason I urge you not to
support this petition.
Nancy Gaston, 38685 Jahn Drive: My home and property backs up to the property we
fl are speaking about. Something I would like you to be aware of when you
make a decision on this. There is a 100 foot easement. As far as privacy
in the woods that we have now, 100 feet is not very much. The reason I
15842
am telling you that is because when you put in office buildings, or when
you put in a parking lot, which the surveyors have been out there for the
last two weeks doing, I would like you to keep in mind that the lighting
that will be put in there will cause a problem with the Villas and with the
whole back of our subdivision. We have lights on 24 hours coming from
Target and the Home Quarters offices. We have the lights on all night
shining into our bedroom window and into our backyard from the
Embassy Hotel. Having any type of office building put back there, having
a parking lot with any type of security lighting is going to affect the
subdivision in the Villas. So if it changes, I would just like to have you
remember I'm not always going to be here, I'm not always going to find
out what's going on because I am not always notified of activities behind
us, but please keep in mind that the lighting and the noise and the 100'
retaining wall is a very big concern of all of us that back up to this
property.
William Davidson, 38635 Jahn: I have been a resident since July. I bought that piece of
property because I intended to stay there until they carried me out in a box.
I bought it with the understanding that it would be office behind it. That's
not the problem, it's the aspect of the health club being developed at the
eastern end of that property. Seven days a week, 24 hours? No. I don't
care if it's in a lower level of an existing office space, or in a free standing
building. It represents something that doesn't belong in that
neighborhood.
Bill Stamelos, 38131 Vista Drive North: I would like to object also. We bought into the
Villas knowing there were going to be office buildings there. The very
nature of an office building is in direct conflict with a health club. An
office building usually operates from 8:00 to 5:00, five days a week.
Health clubs by its very nature has to operate beyond those hours to
accommodate people seven days a week until the wee hours of the
morning. Therefore, it is in direct conflict with what we have and the very
nature of the neighborhood. At the current time I think we have four
office buildings going up on Victor Parkway under construction. That
should be enough traffic going in there without a health club going in there
with a 7 day operation or even a late night operation.
Ken Strobel. I am a consultant to Lifetime Fitness: I reside at 1958 Chauncery, Troy. I
have been representing Lifetime at this facility since this summer. I met
with Mr. Nagy and other members of the administration regarding this.
You may recall we initiated this with direction from the City as a C-2
rezoning. During that process it became apparent, particularly with action
the City recently took in terms of changing the rezoning, that the C-2 was
not the way to go. We were requested to drop that petition and we obliged
by doing so. During this period of time, Lifetime Fitness was attempting
...
15843
to purchase from the Kojaian Companies, the easterly portion of this 28
acre site. Kojaian Companies put a time frame on that purchase which has
expired. I can't say with any degree of certainty because I wasn't able to
*41... reach my client in Minneapolis today, but Mr. Nagy told me that a site
plan was put forward to the City which would include two office buildings
which would incorporate the proposed site. It is possible that the three
people against the fitness facility on this site need not be concerned
because it may not happen at all. The window of opportunity that was
given to Lifetime Fitness to buy this site has expired, and I am not certain
that the Kojaian Companies at this point in time would extend that.
However, we do feel that this kind of use is a complimentary use in this
office district. As a resident of Troy and as a planning and development
consultant, I represented Lifetime Fitness in Troy, I am also representing
them on another site in another community. In Troy we were successful in
achieving a parking variance and site plan special use approval for a six
acre site in a 211 acre office park. The City of Troy is very excited about
this. The residents in general are very excited about this. It is a facility
like none you've probably seen before. I flew to Minneapolis in
September to look at this facility, or several of them, they have nine
currently, and they are very impressive. In my view this is an asset to an
office park because it gives people in that office park an opportunity to
exercise, to become fit, to become more nutritiously aware. They do other
things besides the fitness facilities. They have nutrition programs,
nutrition training and attempt to create an environment where people can
`... become more healthy. I think we all agree that that is something that
people are very concerned about today. It's not like a Vic Tanny. It's
much more extensive than a Vic Tanny. The reason we are here tonight is
that we feel that Livonia still represents an opportunity for Lifetime
Fitness, not necessarily on the site that's been discussed tonight. We are
not really talking about a site proposal this evening, but rather it could be
appropriate in some other part of the City. There have been people in the
Victor Corporate Parkway that have indicated that they would like to see
that facility in the park. It doesn't have to be in that location. There is
other land in that office park that it could be developed on, specifically
there has been contact with a party that had some proposals for
development, and I am speaking specifically about Incredible Universe,
and I recognize that there is some litigation with that, but that will be
resolved at some point, and if the City is successful in maintaining the
position of rezoning that property back to the office district, that area
might represent a good possibility and it would be quite a bit away from
the residential and condominiums that the people are objecting to.
Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned not being permitted in C-2?
Mr. Strobel: No, it is permitted in C-2.
15844
Mr. Piercecchi: It's permitted in C-2, C-3, C-4, R-9 and a waiver use in R-8.
_u. Mr. Strobel: Lifetime Fitness prefers to be more associated with an office development.
We were discouraged from rezoning to C-2 in that particular location. We
would encourage you to recommend approval to the City Council. One
question I have for Mr. Nagy, I noted in the office district it requires a
120' right-of-way. What is Victor Parkway?
Mr. Nagy: 86'.
Mr. Strobel: So with that requirement, in order to have this use you would have to fall
into an OS district as opposed to a PO district. I can tell you that in Troy
the Lifetime Fitness is in an 86' right of way. We had a professional
traffic engineering firm do a traffic study, which is required by the City of
Troy ordinances, and the result of that study is that it would not have a
negative impact on that right of way.
Lady from audience: You are talking about the right of way. We have two streets that
back right into the property. Are those streets going to be opened to this
company?
Mr. Nagy: The roads will remain closed.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-11-6-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved,
it was
#12-202-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
December 16, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-11-
6-7 by the City Planning Commission, to determine whether or not to
amend the OS zoning district to provide for fitness centers/health clubs as
waiver uses, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 97-11-6-7 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment will
provide for more flexibility in the OS and PO zoning districts so as to
accommodate additional land uses which are compatible with and
complementary to general office uses; and
15845
2) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment is
needed so as to accommodate the newest trends in land uses which will
provide more of a variety of services for office workers and users.
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. Walsh: I would like to indicate to the individuals here tonight that this is an
amendment to a general ordinance, not a specific proposal for Lifetime
Fitness or anyone else. For that reason, and based on my research, this is a
trend where offices are locating near facilities that employees can make
use of. I believe this will make business districts more attractive to
investment from office developers.
Mr. McCann: I think that in this instance too, since it is a waiver use, a waiver use
involves each petitioner to come in and then we can determine, based on
the size of the complex, office parks, what is appropriate as far as the size
of the fitness centers. We can also restrict times depending on how close
the residential area is. There would be no commercial allowed, no
restaurants in there. It's the type of thing that I think is appropriate in the
future that office parks do want healthy, fit employees, and if you can
'411Milr make it convenient without disturbing the neighbors, we can look at it on a
case-by-case basis. We are no way looking at any particular item at this
point, only at the ordinance as a whole, and if it is best to amend it for the
future development in the city.
Mr. McCann: This concludes the public hearing portion of the agenda and the
Commission will proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 754th Regular Meeting held on November 25, 1997.
Mr. McCann: All members of the Commission were present at that meeting with the
exception of Mr. Walsh.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#12-203-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 754th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on November 25, 1997 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
15846
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Hale, Koons, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh
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 A-1 Signs, Inc., on behalf of Rio Bravo Cantina, requesting
approval for additional signage for the restaurant located at 19265 Victor Parkway
in the SE 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This is the Rio Bravo Cantina located on the west side of Victor Parkway
between Seven and Eight Mile Roads. What they are proposing to do is
replace their one existing wall sign with another wall sign, put up an
additional wall sign, and they are also asking for approval for a ground
sign. At this time they have a 52 sq. ft. wall sign on the west elevation,
which is the elevation that is the entrance and also faces I-275. This
existing sign is conforming. What they would like to do is replace the
existing sign with a new 95 sq. ft. sign that would be placed over the
entrance in the restaurant's "cookie cutter"type parapet wall. They are
also asking for additional signage on the south elevation which is the
�... elevation that faces Seven Mile Road. This sign is 45 sq. ft. and would be
placed over the enclosed porch area. The proposed ground sign would be
30 sq. ft. They are allowed one ground sign at 30 sq. ft., so this is a
conforming sign. This would be located on the left hand side as you drive
in off Victor Parkway onto this site. Because this sign package is
nonconforming, it had to go to the Zoning Board prior to being presented
to the Planning Commission. They do have a variance and this proposal is
what was approved by the Zoning Board.
There was no one present wishing to speak on this item.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-204-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by A-1 Signs, Inc. on
behalf of Rio Bravo Cantina requesting approval for signage for the
restaurant located at 19265 Victor Parkway in the SE 1/4 of Section 6 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
15847
1) That the Sign Package submitted by A-1 Signs, Inc. as received by
the Planning Commission on December 4, 1997 is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after
this business 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 Petition 97-12-8-
24 by Woodhaven of Livonia requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a senior
housing facility on property located at 29667 Wentworth Avenue in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This is the Woodhaven of Livonia site. It is located on the south side of
Wentworth Avenue between Middlebelt and Henry Ruff. What they
would like to do is build an independent living apartment building on the
vacant parcel that is south and adjacent to their existing facility. This new
building would be called Woodpointe of Livonia. It would be two stories
in height and a total of 39,922 sq. ft. in area. It would contain four one-
bedroom units and eighteen two-bedroom units for a total of twenty-two
units. Based on the units of the facility, they are required to have 22
parking spaces. The site shows 36, so they meet the parking requirement.
Also with this new facility, they are proposing a new drive off of
Wentworth Avenue. Presently you enter the site from the adjacent
church's property. This new drive would provide access straight into the
facility. They are required to have 15% landscaping and the site shows
50%, so they far exceed the landscaping requirements. They propose nice
landscaping along the front entrance. They also would have 17 Douglas
Firs along the south property line to help buffer the adjacent residential
district. The building would be constructed mainly out of brick with the
projected areas constructed out of a clapboard siding to help offer visual
relief. Also the roof would be asphalt shingled to give it a residential look.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Inspection Department indicating they have no
problems or deficiencies that were found with the building.
The Engineering Department in the letter referencing the subject petition
dated December 10, 1997 indicate they have several comments regarding
the proposed Wentworth Avenue entrance which should be brought to
your attention at this time: 1) The City Council passed Resolution#1212-
88, dated 02/06/89 which deleted the property owned by the Apostolic
15848
Church at 29667 and 29575 Wentworth Avenue west of Middlebelt Road.
2) The deletion of the Apostolic Church from the Special Assessment
Paving Roll was based upon dialog at a public hearing held on 12/14/88.
3) Five letters have been received by this office from residents on
Wentworth Avenue, all dated 11/19/97, which voice their objections to
any new entrance from Wentworth Avenue to the Apostolic Church
property. See attached letters from Wentworth residents. Furthermore,
the Engineering Division would not issue a drive approach permit for the
Apostolic Church to Wentworth Avenue unless approved by City Council.
The Engineering Division has no other concerns or objections to the
development of this site. We trust this will provide you with the required
information. That's signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer.
A letter from the Police Division states they have no concerns to the
location of the driveway for this site plan. That's signed by John B. Gibbs
of the Traffic Bureau.
The six letters we received are duplicate letters as follows: "It has been
brought to the attention of the residents of Wentworth Street(west of
Middlebelt)that Woodhaven of Livonia, located at 29667 Wentworth, is
planning on adding a new building to their complex. Included with this
plan is a new entrance to Woodhaven coming from Wentworth street and a
plan to widen Wentworth Street to accommodate increased traffic. Even
though Woodhaven may not have proposed this plan to the Livonia City
�.. Planning Commission, the residents of Wentworth would like the City to
know how we feel about the proposed new entrance. Currently, the
entrance to Woodhaven and The Apostolic Church is three houses west of
Middlebelt off Wentworth. There are many deliveries, members of the
Church, visitors and employees of Woodhaven that use this entrance
everyday. The new entrance is proposed to be seven lots west of
Middlebelt. This causes a dramatic increase in commercial traffic further
down Wentworth. The increase traffic pattern presents a hazard to the
Residents of Wentworth in many ways. The new construction will also
destroy a natural greenbelt that separates Woodhaven, the Apostolic
Church and the Residents of Wentworth Street. We live on this dead end
street for a reason. We have always enjoyed the quiet and safe
environment that comes with it. The safety of our children and
grandchildren that play on this street (there are no sidewalks) will be in
jeopardy. We would like the City of Livonia to consider the safety of its
residents and deny the destruction of the natural greenbelt on Wentworth.
We hope you can help us with this distressful situation and leave the
original drive to Woodhaven and the Apostolic Church as the ONLY
entrance to the complex.
15849
We have a letter from the Fire Marshal, Rockney Whitehead, dated
December 11, 1997 as follows: This office has reviewed the plans
submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a senior housing
facility on property located on the south side of Wentworth Avenue,
between Middlebelt and Henry Ruff Road. The existing facility/complex,
Woodhaven of Livonia Nursing Home, currently has an existing aggregate
road-bed running east/west along the south side of the building. This
provides vehicle and firefighter access to remote parts of the building. An
on-site hydrant currently exists and is advantageously located along this
drive. Admittedly this road initially was used for construction equipment.
However, the placement of the aforementioned hydrant suggested a more
permanent use, i.e., access for emergency vehicles. The site plans
submitted indicate an elimination of this access route. Per City Ordinance,
this Division will require this access route to remain. Further, it shall be
posted"Fire Lane-No Parking". It is also required to be maintained
throughout the year including times of snowfall. In lieu of such posting, it
would be acceptable to provide a gate or chain across entrance to subject
fire lane. The proposed two story structure, Woodhaven of Livonia, shall
provide a means for turning a fire department pumper around and located
at the most remote, dead-end, portion of the drive. An on-site hydrant
shall be provided and located between 50 ft. and 100 ft. from the FDC for
the fire sprinkler system. Other issues of concern may be addressed at the
plan review stage.
�.. Mr. McCann: Did the Fire Department review the new driveway to the west? Did they
have any objection to removing the driveway to the west?
Mr. Nagy: No, they did not.
Mr. McCann: Further, you stated that the letter from engineering, Mr. Hill, had some
special requirements in order for approval.
Mr. Nagy: The City Council must approve it because of the fact that they did not
participate in the special assessment paving program as they believed at
that time they would not access that road,that they shared no special
benefits from the paving of the road. Today if they were to tie into that
road,they indeed would be having a benefit.
Mr. McCann: Is it still the opinion of the Planning Department that we need to table this
and review it?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. I believe the second driveway is important. I think that is concurred
in the Traffic Division and the Fire Department. I think it is concurred by
the city engineer subject to their participation in the paving and widening
of the road.
15850
Mr. McCann: They believe it is necessary. So it is still your position that we should
table this to try and work out a solution?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. McCann: Rather than get into a large discussion, I look to the Commissioners for a
motion to table.
Mr. Alanskas: Could I ask the petitioner a question?
Randy Gasser, administrator of Woodhaven of Livonia, 37153 Fairfax, Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Gasser, at the December 11 meeting that you had with the residents,
how many residents showed up?
Mr. Gasser: Approximately 15. We had a good meeting, but we did not meet
consensus.
Mr. Alanskas: Were there notes taken at that meeting so that we would have some idea of
what went on at that meeting?
Mr. Gasser: We can create some notes from that meeting.
`e. Mr. McCann: I think there are a couple of issues to be resolved between the Fire
Department, the Engineering Department and the Traffic Bureau with
regard to that second driveway as to whether or not they believe there's a
need, whether or not it can be adjusted and whether there's any additional
conditions we want put on the petitioner because of the waiver use.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-205-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table Petition 97-12-8-24 by Woodhaven of Livonia requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a senior housing facility on
property located at 29667 Wentworth Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 14
to January 6, 1998.
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 95-4-2-15 which received waiver use approval to construct a Westborn
15851
Market on property located at 14925 Middlebelt Road in the NE 1/4 of Section
23.
Mr. Miller: The Westborn Market is located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
between Five Mile Road and Linda Avenue. Back in June of 1995 they
received waiver use approval to build the fruit market. As part of that
approval, it was conditioned that a 6' high masonry wall shall be installed
on the property along the west and south property lines. In May of 1997
they came back and revised the site plan to include a retail center. As part
of that approval it was conditioned that Westborn shall build a 7' high wall
along the south property line. They are now requesting to substitute the
two protective walls with a vinyl privacy fence, 7' high along the south
and 6' high along the west property line.
Mr. Nagy: Mr. Woodcox submitted a letter dated December 4, 1997 indicating that
the Inspection Department would have no objection to the proposed
substitution, however because of past concerns of the abutting residential
property owners and to avoid any future conflict, I would suggest that the
petitioner secure written acknowledgment from all abutting properties as
to the type, size and location of the proposed fence prior to its approval.
McCann: Mr. Nagy, did you have a discussion with the petitioner as to whether he
would want to deed it over or secure the written consents?
NN.. Mr. Nagy: We are working on getting the consents.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-206-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Revision to Petition 95-4-2-15, which
received waiver use approval to construct a Westborn Market on property
located at 14925 Middlebelt Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 23, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the protective walls along the west and south property lines,
as approved in Council Resolution#474-97, shall be relocated not more
than three (3) feet within Westborn Market's property so as to allow the
appropriate machinery to put up the wall without disturbing the residents'
property;
2) That the petitioner shall secure written acknowledgment from all
property owners abutting the protective walls affirming that the residents
would maintain the displaced area outside the wall, and copies of this
15852
confirmation shall be presented to the Inspection Department prior to the
issuance of a protective wall permit.
No.. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: I would like to take a moment to thank one of our members. It is his last
meeting tonight. Mr. Walsh has dedicated his time and expertise
graciously to the City Planning Commission. We are going to miss him,
but he will go on now and get to vote on all these items again at the
Council, and I'm sure he will do it wisely. We wish him a lot of luck and
I would like to give him an opportunity to say a few words at his last
meeting.
Mr. Walsh: I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Planning Commission and
the staff for their commitment to the City and also their help in the last
year and half since I've been on the Planning Commission. I enjoyed the
support from all of you. I don't know if I should take that as a compliment
or your desire to get me off the Commission as fast as possible, but I'll
take it as a compliment. I look forward to working with the staff in my
new role as a council member and relying on the good work of the
Commission. Thank you.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 755th Regular Meeting
,, and Public Hearings was adjourned at 9:45 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
../77
James C. McCann, Chairman
du