HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-01-27 15866
MINUTES OF THE 757TH REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 757th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM with
approximately 10 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: James C. McCann Daniel Piercecchi
Robert Alanskas Elaine Koons
Members Absent: Michael Hale
Messrs. John Nagy, 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
41400, 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 that the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-12-1-
21 by L. T. Company L.L.C. requesting to rezone property located on the
southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Louise Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section
2 from M-1 (Light Manufacturing)to C-2 (General Business).
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 Department indicating they have no
objections to the proposal. That is signed by Robert Schron, City
Engineer. That's the extent of our correspondence.
Richard Taubman, attorney for L. T. Company, L.L.C., 29021 Telegraph, Suite 510,
Southfield, Michigan. To my left is Israel Lazar. He is a member of L. T.
Company. I passed out some brochures and I want to explain what is in
15867
those brochures. The first page that you see is a color copy of a prototype
of an Oklahoma station. That is the type of station my client would like to
put in this location. He has a letter that explains that they are interested in
r... this site to be an Oklahoma gas station provided that he can get proper
signage. The next page is a survey that was done December 5, 1997. The
following pages show the way it appeared in November of 1997 that was
with the previous owner. The couple of pages after that are from the local
property owners, the neighbors on each side of the property. You can see
they are American Speedy Printing, Country Style Market, Evergreen
Sprinkling and the residential neighbors. Each of them are in favor of the
zoning change that we are going to request tonight. Clipped to the back of
the brochure, is a black and white elevation plan. My client will hold up
the color rendering so that you can see what we intend to do at this site in
terms of the signage and the colors.
Mr. McCann: Has this been provided to the staff prior to tonight's meeting?
Mr. Taubman: No. It was discussed with the staff, but I don't think they've seen these
drawings. The other document that is clipped to the back of the brochure
is the landscape plan that was drawn in 1994 from the previous owner.
From what I understand, the previous owner did not comply with some
promises that were made regarding some landscaping that was to be done
there. My client is willing to do the landscaping that is shown on the
drawing, or to do other landscaping that is required by the City. We say all
that by way of introduction because we want to indicate that what my
client's intention is is to turn this into a first class operation. He purchased
the property at the end of 1997. The property has been historically used as
a gas station since at least 1941. The previous owners apparently have let
it run down and it is a bit of an eyesore right now. As part of my client
wanting to renovate the station, he contacted this Oklahoma company and
they are willing to do business with him, but they need to have signage
which is appropriate to the gas station. The current zoning there has some
severe limitations, as the Commission knows, as to what signage would be
allowed. In addition, my client would like to have his property conform to
the appropriate zoning there. We think it would be in the interest of the
City to have the proper zoning there and to go forward and improve the
appearance.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you keeping the same footprint of the building that is there?
Mr. Lazar: Yes, the same size, but we plan on remodeling the whole outside and the
whole inside; major cosmetic changes.
Mr. Pierchecchi: You are aware that to go to C-2, you have some deficiencies in a
few areas. One, your property is 15,600 sq. ft. C-2 requires 22,500 sq.ft.
15868
Your setback is now 50', which complies with the M-1, but it requires 75'
in C-2. Your frontage is 130' and it requires 150' with the C-2 zoning.
You have a dilemma there. I visited your site 2 or 3 times and I would like
to know who are your customers right now. Is this a private gas station?
Mr. Taubman: The customers up until now have been Pacific Pride fleet sales, so there has
been a fleet of trucks, people who have purchased special cards to use the
station to use the gas. So up until now, unless you were part of these
people who purchased the right, you couldn't go in and buy gas.
Mr. Pierchecci: I had occasion to go by that site today and there were eleven
disabled cars parked there. Are you going to modify that?
Mr. Lazar: Yes. As soon as we get the station we will clean out the vehicles. The
previous owners left us about 30 vehicles. We got rid of all the unlicensed
vehicles which was about 17 vehicles. We have another 4 vehicles that
have to go and the rest of the vehicles are waiting for repairs.
Mr. Pierchecci: When did you take over possession of this property?
Mr. Lazar: About three weeks ago.
Mr. Pierchecci: I am delighted to see that someone is taking that over. Right now
there is a hand-painted sign, and it is really not a credit to our city. I
brought up these dimensional things, and that may prove a problem. John,
can we approve a C-2 here when they don't meet the specs?
Mr. Nagy: Tonight we are just trying to see if we should rezone the property to C-2
and it would open it up to all of the permitted uses. Gas stations are not
permitted in C-2. They would have to come back and file for the waiver
use and that's when those specific standards that you mentioned would
come into play.
Mr. Piercecchi: I realize you cannot condition zoning. I don't feel we should live in
a vacuum here either, and getting some of this information through you and
these two gentlemen I think is going to help us make a decision on this.
Mr. Nagy: Without knowing the extent of the remodeling and what is actually being
proposed, but apparently it is a valid non-conforming use, the use already
apparently being on the property, so to the extent it is not an expansion,
but really one of repair and upkeep, we might be able to handle it through
the Zoning Board as a non-conforming use.
Mr. Piercecchi: So keeping the same footprint is an advantage to them?
15869
Mr. Nagy: I would think so. Without actually examining the plans that were presented
tonight, I am only hazarding a guess. I am not saying with certainty.
Mrs. Koons to Mr. Nagy: Review for me please that the current use of the gas station is a
valid non-conforming use in M-1. What do we gain by moving to C-2?
Mr. Nagy: With C-2 zoning you then have sign standards that are applicable to the C-
2 district. As it is today with the M-1, the sign standards, even though it is
a commercial use, the M-1, Manufacturing sign district, apply so there
would be more liberalization with a C-2 zoning change for signage for the
property. Now whether that is a gain or not, certainly that would move in
the direction of helping this applicant upgrade this site for a gasoline
service station.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Lazar, what is the little cement block looking extension in the back of
the building?
Mr. Lazar: This is a storage room for parts. It has the air compressor and shelves for
parts for auto repair.
Mr. Alanskas: When you were showing the picture, this is more like a convenience store.
Do they also have repair bays?
Mr. Lazar: Not in this picture, but it has some.
Mr. Alanskas: You are going to keep two doors?
Mr. Lazar: Yes. Two doors, two service bays and the other section which is 400 sq.ft.
for a sales record place.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say you want to remodel that building, because it is a disaster,
what plans do you have for the exterior and interior?
Mr. Lazar: The sales room will be completely gutted and I will put in ceramic tiles.
We are going to remove the ceiling, put all new wiring, change all the light
fixtures. We are going to change the walls and put dry wall on. It will be
complete remodeling. The two bays, we are going to clean, paint the walls
and repair the electric. The outside, we are going to remove all the face of
the building and put in new tiles. We are going to remove all the awnings
and put in new. We are going to replace all the windows, new door.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a problem going from M-1 to C-2 because if you go into this
venture and it doesn't work out for you, then we have C-2 zoning in that
parcel and there are a lot of things that can go into a C-2. I think we really
need to have more study on this because we just got this this evening.
15870
Mr. McCann: Have you given any thought as to where the dumpster would be?
Mr. Lazar: The dumpster right now was close to the building and we moved it, but we
want to find a place where the truck can come in and pick it up and enclose
it with a wooden fence.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, does the petitioner have anything more he wishes
to inform us about?
Mr. Taubman: I just want to say that about the dumpster or any of those issues, my client
does want to work with the City. These are details he certainly will work
with the city to their satisfaction. We would like to obtain the zoning
change and move forward.
Mr. Lazar: I will work with the City as far as the signage goes too. I would like to
add that in the last 7 years the only thing that has been done to this
property as a service station are new underground tanks put in about 4 or 5
years ago, and the canopy was put there a few years ago.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-12-1-21 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it
was
#1-8-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
January 27, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-12-1-21
by L. T. Company, L.L.C. requesting to rezone property located on the
southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Louise Avenue in the NE 1/4 of
Section 2 from M-1 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 97-12-1-21 until the Study Meeting of February
3, 1998.
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. Pierchecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-12-2-30
by Michael Milbert requesting waiver use approval to utilize Class B (Used
Vehicle Dealer) and Class C (Used Vehicle Parts Dealer) licenses at property
15871
located on the north side of Joy Road between Cardwell Avenue and Deering
Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 36.
'`` 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 December 29, 1997 from the Department of Public
Safety, Division of Police, stating the Police Department has no objection
to the site plan as submitted. That is signed by Officer John Gibbs of the
Traffic Bureau. We have a letter from the Livonia Fire and Rescue
Department as follows: This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a proposal to utilize a B & C Dealer License in a building
located at the above referenced address. Exiting is inadequate. Provide
required and remote 2nd means of egress. Overhead doors do not qualify.
That is signed by Rockney L. Whitehead, Fire Marshal. There is another
letter dated December 30, 1997 from David Woodcox of the Inspection
Department as follows: Pursuant to your request of December 18, 1997,
the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The
following problems or deficiencies were found. 1) Ordinance 543, Section
11.03(G)(1) requires that this parcel be at least 1/2 acre (21,780 sq. ft.) in
area and be at least 100 ft. in width at the front lot line. The proposed
parcel is 11,800 sq. ft. in area and is 60 ft. in width at the front property
line. 2) The building is set back 20' from the property line. Section
11.03(G)(2) states that no vehicles shall be parked within 20 ft. of the front
property line. This area is currently being used for customer and employee
parking. 3) The site plan does not provide for any additional parking that
would be required for automobile sales. 4) Section 11.03(G)(7) prohibits
the outdoor storage of damaged or unlicensed vehicles. All miscellaneous
automotive debris and auto parts should be removed from the rear parking
area. 5) The existing parking areas are void of any striping or
identification. 6) As one of the conditions of Zoning Board Appeal Case
#9312-177, Condition #5, a planter box was to be installed in front of the
building. To date, this has not been installed. 7) The subject proposal will
require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a) deficient lot
width, b) lot area, c) parking in front of the building. I trust this has
provided the requested information. We have another letter from the
Engineering Department stating they have no objection to this proposal.
That's the extent of our correspondence.
Ronald Tetrault: The petitioner is not here. I am the owner of the business, he is an
employee.
Mr. McCann: Why was he the petitioner instead of you?
Mr. Tetrault: I think there was some kind of mix-up as to whose name should have been
on it. I understand that what the first impression of somebody wanting the
15U2
licenses what they would want to do, and our desire is not to do probably
what you think. We don't care to have cars out in front of the building for
sale. I mostly need the use of the licenses. What some people do is go to
auctions, and they may not even pick up vehicles at the auction. They may
buy them and then run them back through without even picking them up.
The same thing goes with salvage vehicles. They are purchased and never
even picked up. So as far as someone envisioning us what we want to do
is not really what we are after. I am sure there is going to be a change in
volume of what type of work we do. I think every collision or repair
facility has vehicles that they purchase and repair in the slow time, and we
do the same. This would allow us to have some more versatility when it
comes to that. Again, I understand what somebody would think we are
going to do and I anticipate that if we are lucky enough to have the
allowance to do this that it would be under the restriction of not having any
vehicles with signs on them for sale out in front. I have no problem with
that.
Mr. McCann: Understand though that the waiver use runs with the land. If you sell the
business those uses are still permissible at that business.
Mr. Tetrault: Would they still be usable under those same restrictions?
Mr. McCann: You did say that you are going to be buying cars and occasionally you are
going to be buying cars for salvage and bring back for repair?
Now
Mr. Tetrault: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: You realize that what you are asking us to do on Joy Road is to
really in effect put in a junk yard. That's really what a junk dealer does.
He takes vehicle parts, he dismantles them and he sells the parts and the
remaining scrap and things of that nature.
Mr. Tetrault: I understand that's what most people would do, but that's not what I am
interested in. There could be restrictions as to how many vehicles are in
the lot at a particular time. I would have no problems with that. It's hard
to describe unless you know how the business runs. There are cars that are
sold at auctions and cars that come through with salvage license, salvage
titles that go through and they may look no different than a car that has
been in an accident that you see every day. I would take major restrictions
as far as how many vehicles could be stored there. It's mostly the use of
the licenses that I am after.
Mr. Piercecchi: This type of facility also has some safety hazards. There's going to
be cars and a lot of glass and things of that nature. When I visited your site
a few weeks ago, your gate was even open. If you had been operating
15873
under those circumstances, you would have subjected the residents to some
safety hazards. You know kids like to go into junk cars.
Mr. Tetrault: That would be something that wouldn't continue, for sure.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a copy in your possession of all the violations that Mr. Nagy
read this evening?
Mr. Tetrault: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Why haven't they been complied with?
Mr. Tetrault: As far as the flower boxes, they were installed probably within weeks of
the time that that appeal was made, so I'm not sure what that is about. I
will have to have that explained to me. In fact, they are still on the
building.
Mr. Alanskas: What do you put in the boxes?
Mr. Tetrault: During the summer, flowers.
Mr. Alanskas: How about the striping?
Mr. Tetrault: The striping has not been done. As a matter of fact we just got a final
inspection on our building less than a month and a half ago and at that time
we had just done our last bit of concrete work in the back area and of
course it was winter time.
Mr. Alanskas: Had you planned on doing anything in the front of the building, to staining
that wood?
Mr. Tetrault: Absolutely. In fact there are a couple of things we plan on doing in front
of the building.
Mr. Alanskas: Like what?
Mr. Tetrault: I would like to put partial brick on the lower half to try and avoid some of
the splash that occurs from the front, and also the overhang.
Mr. Alanskas: That Class C license really scares me. If you had that license, then you
have the right to buy used vehicles, or even junk vehicles, strip them down
and sell the parts and then you have a body there. That type of business,
people go there because they can't afford to buy a new car. They go
because they are trying to fix a real old car. You get a lot of traffic for
used parts and that concerns me. There's a lot of bump shops in Livonia
15874
that are surviving just by doing bumping and painting. Why can't you do
that?
Mr. Tetrault: I can, I guess it's a matter of desire. We try to be more diversified. We do
mechanical, collision and even towing.
Mr. Alanskas: You have your own wreckers?
Mr. Tetrault: Yes, one.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Tetrault, I've heard you say a couple of times that it is hard to explain
unless you are in the business. See if I have a bit of the picture that is hard
to explain. What you are saying is that you won't necessarily bring every
car through your business, but the license gives you an opportunity to
purchase a car and sell it without it even coming to your building, or
purchase and sell the parts.
Mr. Tetrault: It is still legal for me to buy and sell a vehicle with a salvage license even
just having a body shop, but I have to buy it through somebody that has a
salvage license. In order to go to an auction where they sell salvage
vehicles, I can sell them there, but somebody else has to buy the car and of
course they charge me more money and sell me the car. It's not that I
can't buy the vehicles right now, I can, but I have to buy them from
somebody who has the license.
Now
Mrs. Koons: Does the license run with having a place?
Mr. Tetrault: Yes. I can understand if we sell the business how the problems would be at
that point, so I understand the loopholes that are possible. I have already
been doing it, so basically what you see happening right now is what will
continue to happen,just a little larger volume. We have been in here for
the recent addition we proposed and built and I think anybody who has
dealt with us knows that we have done things in excess of what we have
been asked to do. As far as the flower boxes or anything else, I would
certainly like to clear that up because there's never been a problem and I
would like to keep it that way.
Mr. McCann: John, in Mr. Woodcox' letter stating that because there were insufficient
setbacks in the front, there's not supposed to be parking there. Is that
according to the site plan, or did the original site plan call for parking
there?
Mr. Nagy: Under our C-2 zoning standards, you can't display cars within 20' of the
front area. For customer parking you would have to drive in the public
right-of-way and that is what they are trying to discourage.
15875
Mr. McCann: At this point, would the petitioner have been notified that he is not allowed
to have customer parking in front?
Mr. Nagy: I would expect so since he already had an inspection for the remodeling.
The Inspection Department must have called it to his attention.
Mr. McCann: Sir, do you want to comment on that before we close the public hearing?
Mr. Tetrault: No.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-12-2-30 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it
was
#1-9-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 27, 1998 on Petition 97-12-2-30 by
Michael Milbert requesting waiver use approval to utilize Class B and Class
C licenses at property located on the north side of Joy Road between
Cardwell Avenue and Deering Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 36, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 97-3-2-9 be denied for the following reasons:
r..
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the Inspection Department in a letter dated 12/29/97 identifies
a number of problems and site deficiencies relating to the proposed use;
3) That the proposed use fails to comply with the Zoning Ordinance
standards as set forth in Section 11.03(g)(1) with respect to minimum site
width and area requirements pertaining to such use;
4) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the
adjacent residential area to the north;
5) That the proposed use will further burden the subject site with a use
which features the outdoor storage/parking of vehicles which is a deterrent
to the long term stability of the neighborhood;
15876
6) That the petitioner has failed to install landscaping as required in
connection with the approved site plan (Petition 96-6-8-10) and as a
condition of Zoning Board of Appeals Case #9312-177;
7) That the petitioner has failed to maintain the site as currently used
in a satisfactory condition which produces a negative effect on the
surrounding properties in the area;
8) That this use has adverse potential safety effects on the
neighborhood.
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: I would just like to say that I understand your use and need, but you must
realize that you do abut residential area. There are concerns. One of my
concerns is that you haven't completely complied with the previous order,
although there are substantial reasons why you might not have. You still
have parking in the front which the City Inspection Department states is a
safety hazard. I don't think we need to expand the use in there since you
'ger already have deficiencies. You have ten days in which to appeal it to the
City Council.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-12-6-
8 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to CR#518-97, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, to determine whether or not to amend the RUF (Rural Urban Farm)
district and to add a new zoning district to be known as SE (Suburban Estates) for
the purpose of providing for the preservation of large residential lots.
Mr. Nagy: In response to the Council Resolution you referenced in the agenda item,
the Planning Commission in response to that analyzed the RUF districts
and classification as set forth in our Zoning Ordinance and tried to identify
what the objectives of the RUF zoning classification tried to achieve for the
City, and that was for the preservation of larger lots and to encourage their
development of larger building sites, providing for buildings and homes that
are well back from the road, tend to have a better chance to preserve large,
mature trees, longer driveways leading to them. They feature sometimes
accessory buildings such as sheds and barns. The supporting services such
as public streets tend to be not as wide, not to have urban features such as
curbs and gutters, don't always have sidewalks. What we are also trying to
15877
experience in those areas was that because some of those properties would
be larger than a half acre, they were experiencing some redevelopment.
Some of those properties were underutilized. In analyzing the objectives
trying to be sought, we felt what we were looking at was trying to bridge
the gap between a conventional type R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 type that we see in
more traditional type of subdivisions and in the larger open-type of
development. So we are recommending a new zoning classification that
we are calling Suburban Estates. Essentially what it is, it is still going to be
single-family residential zoning classification, and is going to try to
promote the same essential character of the larger lot development, but try
to accommodate it in a smaller lot size and that is an 18,000 sq. ft. lot area,
try to maintain a reasonable lot depth-to-lot-width ratio and that is that the
lot width shall not be less than one-fourth of the lot depth and in no case
shall be less than 70'. The front yard shall be set back at least 45' from the
road. The side yards shall be at least 10% of the width of the lot, or no less
that 10 feet, and in no case shall be wider than 25'. The rear yard shall be
at least 50' or 20% of the lot depth and in no case shall be larger than 60'.
We are also going to incorporate as far as accessory uses some of the
features that are often found in the more rural RUF classifications. We are
also looking at trying to amend the RUF zoning districts to provide for
some of the uses that were part of the rural character of the agricultural
district. The city wants to preserve its agrarian background. We don't
really have as a principal use any agricultural uses of the property. There
are some incidental agricultural uses, but as far as the primary development
of the property for agricultural purposes, that has long since vanished. To
the extent that they occur, we are going to try and accommodate those as
accessory uses and provide for them in the RUF areas. What we might do,
if this is successful, is go back some day and look at the possible
elimination of the agricultural zones in their entirety.
Mr. Piercecchi: I was concerned initially about this that it wouldn't be lots between
streets, that it wasn't just an elongated R-2. I looked at the map very
thoroughly and none of these lots go from street-to-street, so you can't say
let's put one down the middle and make two R-2 lots which would satisfy
the 70'x120'. I found that 60% of the lots are 70' in width, but they do
vary from 70' to 140'.
Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Matthew Boettcher, 20030 Milburn: I came here to speak in support of this zoning
classification. Just to point out that the Council Resolution that was
pointed out by Mr. Nagy was a direct response to a redevelopment in my
neighborhood that was vigorously contested by all of us. Mr. Soave is now
putting up homes. There was a compromise with the Council as to the
rezoning to RUF and it went to R-4. At the time Mr. McGee expressed
Noir
15878
significant concern over the preservation of the larger lots in the rural
neighborhoods that still exist. I had the opportunity to see the proposed
rezoning map. The RUF is still prevalent to many areas of the City. The
r„� Council after the rezoning in the area took it upon themselves to pass this
resolution. I am very pleased to see the time and effort spent in examining
this issue. We believe it to be a very serious issues. When this property
was zoned from out under us, we were very concerned that that was the
beginning of the watershed, and that our properties that are zoned RUF
would be slowly chipped away and reclassified so that the character of the
neighborhood would be lost. While none of us were pleased with the
rezoning, I understand the importance of compromise and a City plan that
reflects that real nature of the property. I have read the zoning ordinance
carefully, and I just had a couple of concerns I wished to express. First is
the issue of the frontage and setback requirements. Given the proportions
of the SE zoning classification, 18,00 sq.ft. with 70' frontage, I haven't
worked out the proportions, but that could conceivably be a very narrow
long lot. I am not quite sure what type of house you could get on that
proportion when you have 45' of front yard, but no more than 60' in the
backyard. This would seem to have the opportunity to have a fairly large
home on a narrow lot which I don't think is in keeping with the nature of
the homes that are in the community. I know that these numbers aren't
arbitrary and someone thought about them carefully when they put them
out, but I'm wondering if those proportions make sense given the size of
the lots under the new SE classification. The other issue I wanted to raise
was in the preamble which talks about the ability to avoid the SE
classification where it would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
If this ordinance were adopted, someone coming in and asking for a new
classification, or even a variance, is going to carry a heavy burden. That
type of language that you see in the preamble invites the opportunity to
quibble the classification if someone comes close, but not quite, to meeting
all the requirements. I, as a neighbor and a citizen, would like to see a little
stronger statement as to the intent behind this that we are not looking to
discourage this. We are looking to maintain these classifications. Let
those who want to then deviate from the norm come in and show that that
is justified. Certainly there are standards that are well established that
those who seek to alter what the Council may ultimately do would have to
satisfy. I'm told this is a positive compromise. My first preference would
be to continue the RUF zoning, but I understand that that isn't necessarily
the case and not going to happen. What I would very much like to see not
happen however is that this be the beginning of a complete revamping and
reclassification of all the RUF or AG zoning that is in the City. I know
that AG may be unusual, but if you go through those areas and speak to
those citizens, we all moved into those areas because they were unique but
i they were in the City and we wanted them to be maintained. As a citizen I
15879
would appreciate your looking at these setbacks to see that they make
sense. I support the effort and I applaud the work that went into this.
Mr. McCann: One of the things we looked at when you look at these minimum setbacks,
this ordinance is to maintain the residential areas we have, not necessarily
to look at future development of undeveloped areas, but to maintain the
ones that we have existing. In order to encompass the different areas we
have in the City, that is how we came up with the dimensions. Is that
correct John?
Mr. Nagy: Correct. I wouldn't want anyone to think that we are now going to rezone
RUF areas to SE areas. The Council asked us to look at the RUF for a
possible elimination. Our recommendation is to keep RUF on the books.
We are just trying to bridge the disparity between the R-4, R-5 and the full
21,780 sq. ft. of a half acre lot and to accommodate some of that
consolidation and under-utilization of some of those larger parcels. Where
it make sense, where it is appropriate and where the development has
occurred consistent with RUF standards, I think we are trying to maintain
those and that is our intent. I think the language speaks to that in our
proposed amendment to the RUF that henceforth it is going to be the goal
to discourage, not approve, lot splits that are in conflict with the RUF
standards.
Mr. Boettcher:Where I see room for argument - it is not where I live because where I live
the lots are all very large and they are all the same. No one is going to go
in and change that. It is always that little piece that abuts where there is
going to be the point of argument. For example, on Sunset where this new
development went, there is a little slash of an area that was zoned R-2
where these awful houses went up, and then that was bootlegged to the
argument that, well, we've got this here, so next door we can change this
RUF to make it compatible to the R-2. That's what my neighbors and I
fought so vigorously to avoid. Whenever you have a change of zoning, it's
not the area in the middle you have to worry about, it's the area on the
perimeter where someone can say on this side of the street it is this and on
this side of the street it is that. Let's make it more compatible with that.
Whenever you change from a status quo and you create a new status quo,
that invites creative people to come in and say, well let me make an
argument and let me change this still further. That's what I think we saw
last year and that's what we hope to avoid in the future.
Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn. I live next to Matt. I also am an RUF land owner. I thought
there would be more explanation of what the colors on your map meant.
Overall I am in support of the effort being made here. I was also one of the
neighbors that opposed the rezoning of the RUF in our neighborhood. I
like what is happening here, but there are still questions. I think it's
15880
necessary for the very fact that we have been nibbling away at our RUF
zoning. That's where our development is going to be and that's the
demand and it's coming at the expense of quality and character of our
neighborhoods. Does this amended ordinance correct or improve upon
what we had in order to preserve those Rural Urban Farm zones? It seems
like it does, but that's my question. We had an ordinance and it seems that
if we followed that ordinance, we wouldn't be in the predicament that we
are in. That ordinance has somehow been judged as flawed or insufficient
or outdated, so now it's time to upgrade it to strengthen its purpose and
intent and then we can meet legal challenges. Does this amendment fulfill
that need? Will this be challenged in court?
Mr. McCann: Sir, any ordinance can be challenged depending on the person's point of
view. In this instance as you heard by Mr. Boettcher and Mr. Nagy, our
intent is, and the intent of the ordinance is, to save the rural-aspects of our
City. We have a lot of properties that don't quite fit the RUF area. They
don't quite fit the R-5. What we are trying to do is create a rural type
setting that they would fall into so that we have something that they fit into
and we can say no, it isn't an RUF area, but they do fit into this and we are
going to keep them there. We have something that works and we are able
to maintain these areas in a rural type of setting. Mr. Nagy tried to explain
it as well as anybody, and I don't know what more can we do at this point.
We are open for suggestions.
Mr. Craig: What happens to the orange colored land? Are they in it or out of it?
Mr. Nagy: What we are saying there is that because of the way that land was split and
assembled many, many years ago, those areas while they are zoned RUF,
there is no zoning classification accommodating them because of their
extreme lot width-to-depth ratio. Those are all problematic areas. While
they certainly have large parcels in total area, they should be looked at.
Those are special cases where it would be difficult to deal with whether we
preserve the RUF or even with Suburban Estates. We tried to target all the
RUF areas within the community and we used the color coding to indicate
what we think are more applicable areas that can be addressed versus those
that will continue to be difficult under present standards, as well as our new
proposal.
Mr. Craig: So they might end up being zoned something else?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Craig: Is there a possibility they will be grandfathered?
Mr. Nagy: They will no doubt continue to be grandfathered.
15881
Mr. Craig: Not only do these large lots offer a rural characteristic and add to the
quality of our neighborhood, but I think it is also important to appreciate
the habitat that is encompassed in these lots, the habitat that is necessary
for wild life, for people who are bird watchers and bird lovers. That adds
to the quality of our life. There's another aspect mentioned by Mr. Nagy,
these large lots are also the last areas of our mature trees. I realize that
these are emotional quality aspects, they don't have a dollar value, but in
many cases they do have a dollar value because invariably a person will
want to buy a large lot just to have those trees and to have that habitat
quality. There is a new direction, a new urbanism coming our way as we
appreciate what we are losing and what we are ending up with as far as
over-development and traffic-clogged streets. Instead of losing quality
residents in the City of Livonia as they seek that, this particular ordinance
will save that quality and maintain that high quality that Livonia residents
have. I support this new ordinance.
Mr. Piercecchi: I want to repeat sir that the ordinance is to provide for the
preservation of the large residential lots and this SE ordinance will stop
R-1 and R-2 from going into those. You mentioned someone's RUF
sometimes get split up, but generally these were classified a long, long time
ago and they don't really qualify for RUF. Some of them are very small as
a matter of fact. Those are the ones that have a tendency to get rezoned.
This is going to protect the large residential lots in the area.
Sonja Styles, 20224 Purlingbrook: My property is zoned RUF. I have read over the new
zoning that has been specified for our area. I have looked at the map
closely. I think you should consider that property owners should be
individually notified because new designations seem to severely diminish
the likelihood that property owners will be able to subdivide their property.
I am thoroughly opposed to this new rezoning. Many property owners
have held on to their property as an investment with the hope of
subdividing at a profit as property scarcity drives up the price. For some
property owners their property is their primary asset. I am one of those.
Please do not make a wholesale change on all areas being considered.
They are not created equal. Some clearly are residential in nature far
removed from commercial areas of high density and multi family housing,
others are not. You should at least take the time to physically walk
through the areas and see for yourselves that it greatly varies, particularly
those areas where there is much opposition. I think you should also
remember the individual rights of those who pay taxes on the property. It
is nice to attempt to keep green space in the City, but is it fair to expect
property owners to continue paying taxes and upkeep on property so that
neighbors can experience nature and in some circumstances take advantage
of property that does not belong to them? I would also like to say to you
15882
that on my street I have a commercial building at the end of the street and 3
properties north of my property is an apartment building. The back of my
property is zoned high density housing. I am zoned RUF. I inherited my
house and land from my father, who in turn was given and purchased land
from my grandfather. We have passed my land to 3 generations with 4
generations living on it. We have struggled to maintain and keep our land.
We are depending on our land investment to give us a financial cushion.
Before this committee enacts this zoning ordinance, I am asking them all to
come out and walk the neighborhood with me to see for themselves my
land. The people have held on to the land in the area that I live and are
holding on to it for investment. The homes in this area compare to the
homes in the Six Mile/Newburgh area.
Mr. McCann: This is just for a change in ordinance. We are not changing any of the
districts at this point. You are correct, before we come back and rezone
property there will be a hearing. Today is not to change all these areas.
These are just areas that could be affected by the change of zoning, or
would fit within that zoning area should at some point we decide to go
forward and change those districts. At this point we are just trying to
create in the ordinance book another classification. We are not attempting
to rezone your property.
Mrs. Styles: Aren't you saying that you cannot subdivide RUF land, that we have to
stay at half acre lots? That we could not go to R-2 if we chose to do that?
Mr. McCann: Every petitioner has the right to come before the City Planning
Commission and the City Council with a petition to rezone their property.
This would not stop your ability to file a petition. What we are trying to
do here is to maintain some of the rural areas within the City. Certain areas
may no longer be appropriate to maintain in an RUF setting. It is our
intent to maintain as much as possible. We are not looking at your
property tonight, we are looking at a zoning ordinance change.
Mrs. Styles: When I looked at the map that was presented, my area was included in
that. When I looked at your amendment and your wording change, it was
stating that it did affect me.
Mr. McCann: It could affect you in the future. At that time, we could take a specific
look at your property. We have a general zoning book that we abide by. It
gives us different classifications. We are just adding a new classification
where we can work, and the reasons the staff put all these colored areas is
to give us an idea what part of the City could be affected by it, and it may
be beneficial to these areas of the City, but we would go back at another
time to determine whether or not to change those zonings to this new
zoning. If you are in that zoning classification, you would be notified, you
15883
would have the opportunity to come and say I want to be excluded from
this change of zoning, or you have the right at any time to file your own
petition to change your own property to whatever zoning you feel is
appropriate.
Mrs. Styles: That is all I wanted to know. Thank you.
Steve Pokornicki, 31641 Bobrich: I think this notification to all RUF property owners
should have been done by mail to get their input. I think there are a lot of
people in the City that just aren't aware of the scope of this.
Thomas Quinn, 34625 Norfolk: We are a little neighborhood that lives on a dead-end
street just one block south of Eight Mile and West of Gill Road. Is that
part of this?
Mr. Nagy: I am acknowledging that your property is zoned RUF.
Mr. Quinn: In this new change, does that mean we can start putting in streets, curbs,
sidewalks, lights, something to put us into the 21st century?
Mr. Nagy: You can do that now. If your neighborhood wants to circulate a petition
and the vast majority wanted needed improvements whatever that might be,
sidewalks, paved streets, curbs and gutters, or whatever, you can do that
now by petitioning the City Council.
Mr. Quinn: This new classification does not have anything to do with that?
Mr. Nagy: No, we are just saying it is the intent of this new classification to try and
have some subdivisions in this City that aren't so typical of what you are
seeing now with the 70', 80', 90' size where there tends to be smaller
setbacks. Between the homes are closer, the front yards are closer where
the home in relation to the street is close, where you have a concrete
driveway right up to the front of your garage, a 6" raised curb, gutter
section, concrete roads, sidewalks. An urban as opposed to a more rural
setting. We are saying the intent of the Suburban Estates classification is
to go back and try to preserve the character of the RUF areas that we have
identified in yellow on this map. They tend to be larger buildings further
back from the road, longer driveways, sheds, barns, things that are
appropriate. You have a better chance of preserving the larger trees that
tend to be found in those areas. Not to have necessarily, unless it is
wanted, curbs and gutters. You might want to have valley swales. You
might not want to have sidewalks at all.
Mr. Quinn: But in each case that would be voted on by the neighborhood?
15885
Mr. Nagy: If the neighborhood wanted to get together as a group and bring something
in. If it is done more in a traditional subdivision, then the developer would
carry the burden.
Mr. McCann: You are in RUF and would not be part of this SE anyway.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-12-6-8 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#1-10-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
January 27, 1998 on Petition 97-12-6-8 by the City Planning Commission
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance#543, as amended, and Council
Resolution#518-97 to determine whether or not to amend Sections 5.01
through and including 6.14 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to amend the
RUF district and to add a new zoning district to be known as SE
(Suburban Estates) for the purpose of providing for the preservation of
larger residential lots, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 97-12-6-8 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed amendments to the RUF district regulations will
continue to provide for lot sizes which are one-half acre in area or larger
and will continue to provide for uses such as cemeteries and other large
land area uses while eliminating certain land uses which are no longer
applicable;
2) The proposed new SE district will provide for the preservation of
large lots which are less than, but approaching one-half acre in area, and
will permit limited agrarian type uses similar to the current RUF district;
and
3) The amended RUF district regulations and the new SE district
regulations will further insure the preservation of large lots by having, as a
matter of policy, a stated objective to discourage lot splits that result in the
creation of parcels with less than the minimum lot size and are
requirements of the respective districts.
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.
15885
This concludes the Public Hearing portion of our agenda and we will now proceed with
the pending items.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Final Plat
Approval for Kenwood Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the west
side of Sunset Blvd. between Fargo Avenue and Morlock Street in the NW 1/4 of
Section 2.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, supported by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it
was
# 1-11-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Kenwood Estates Subdivision to be located on the west side
of Sunset Boulevard between Fargo Avenue and Morlock Street in the NW
1/4 of Section 2 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat complies in every respect with the Preliminary
Plat;
2) That no City Department has objected to the approval of the Final
Plat; and
3) That all financial assurances required by the City have been
�... deposited with the City Clerk.
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, pursuant to Council Resolution#769-97, to amend Section
18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance to create a new control zone in the area of the
intersection of Plymouth and Farmington Roads.
Mr. McCann: This is just to set a Public Hearing. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#1-12-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution#769-97, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) 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 create a new control zone in the area of the intersection of Plymouth
and Farmington Roads.
15886
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing be given as
provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
r.. recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 757th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on January 27, 1998 was adjourned at 8:48 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
r
ATTEST: ,' l
L
James C. Mceann, Chairman
/du