HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-11-23 17288
MINUTES OF THE 796th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 23, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 796th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Robert Alanskas, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas Michael Hale William LaPine
Dan Piercecchi Elaine Koons H. G. Shane
Members absent: James C. McCann
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II,
Bill Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams were also present.
Acting Chairman Alanskas informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing, make the final determination as to whether a
petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a
request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is
‘4"' forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or
rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight. the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council.
Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission becomes effective seven (7) days after
the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each
of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both
approving and denying resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on
the outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 99-10-2-30 CHARLES BOU-MAROUN
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-2-30 by Charles
Bou-Maroun requesting waiver use approval to operate an ice cream, dessert
and coffee shop (Sweet Spot) with customer seating in the New Five Village
Pla72 located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and
Blue Skies Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 19.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
\.• Mr. Taormina There are three items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Engineering Division dated October 28, 1999, which reads as follows:
17289
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal
at this time. The following legal description should be used in connection
therewith: That part of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, T. IS., R. 9E., City of
Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan more particularly described as beginning at
a point distant South 00°19'42"East, 290.00 feet; thence South 89°56'00" West,
285.00 feet; thence South 00°19'42"East, 105.00 feet from the Northeast corner
of Section 19 and proceeding thence South 00°19'42"East, 70.00 feet; thence
North 89°59'20" West, 20.00 feet; thence North 00°19'42" West, 70.00 feet;
thence South 89°59'20"East, 20.00 feet to the point of beginning. We trust that
this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by
David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second item of correspondence is a letter
from the Division of Police dated November 1, 1999, which reads as follows:
"The Police Department traffic Bureau has reviewed the captioned petition
plans and has no concerns and/or recommendations." The letter is signed by
John B. Gibbs, Police Office, Traffic Bureau. The third item of
correspondence is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated November 8,
1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 27, 1999,
the Inspection Department conducted a review of the above subject petition. No
deficiencies or problems were found. I trust this has provided the requested
information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Inspector.
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Charles Bou-Maroun, 16195 Nola Court, Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas: Could you tell us about your project?
Mr. Bou-Maroun: What we plan on doing is opening up an ice cream parlor as well as a coffee
house, selling cakes, pastries and cookies. We are requesting seating for about
12 seats on the premises.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I have no big problem with your restaurant going in there but I do have a
problem with the unisex bathroom. Is there anyway we can get two separate
bathrooms? I understand under the Wayne County Healthy Department you
are allowed to have a unisex bathroom if you have 12 seats or less. My problem
is you've got 12 people seated plus your employees plus you've got people
coming in buying ice cream and to take out items as a carry-out operation and
with only one bathroom. I think we are cutting it awfully close. Is there
anyway we can get another bathroom in there?
Mr. Bou-Maroun: With the way the plans were set up, I don't think there would be enough
space to have a second bathroom in there.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you.
17290
Mr. Alanskas: I have a couple of questions. Sir, what will your hours be?
Mr. Bou-Maroun: Possibly 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas: How many days a week?
Mr. Bou-Maroun: Seven days a week.
Mr. Alanskas: Will you be having any cooking griddles or deep fryers there or would it be
strictly coffee and doughnuts?
Mr. Bou-Maroun: It will be coffee, cakes, cheesecakes and ice cream cakes.
Mr. Alanskas: There will be nothing as far as cooking?
Mr. Bou-Maroun: No. No cooking will be done on the premises.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any more questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go
to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Hearing none, I will close the Public Hearing and a motion is in
order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane and approved, it was
°i' #11-200-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on November 23, 1999 on Petition 99-10-2-30 by Charles
Bou-Maroun requesting waiver use approval to operate a carry-out dessert shop
(Sweet Spot) with customer seating in the New Five Village Plaza located on
the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies
Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-10-2-30 be approved
subject to a limitation on the maximum number of customer seats to be provided
of 12, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections
10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
17291
AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, Koons, Hale
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: McCann
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. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #2 PETITION 99-9-1-13 ANTHONY J. SEMAAN AND ROSE DASARO
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-1-13 by Anthony
J. Semaan and Rose Dasaro on behalf of Mildred O. Vasaris requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between
Wentworth Avenue and Puritan Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 14 from RUF
to OS.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:There is one item of correspondence and it is from the Engineering Division,
dated October 27, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The
following legal description should be used in connection therewith: The west
200 feet of Lot 276, Supervisor's Livonia Plat #4, located in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 14, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan as recorded
in Liber 66, Page 20 of Wayne County Records. The Engineering Division has
no objections to the proposal, but would like to point out that approval of the
drive approach onto Middlebelt Road would need to be granted form Wayne
County, Also, existing sidewalk would need to be replaced in connection with
the site development. We trust that this will provide you with
the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Anthony Semaan, on behalf of the property owner, Mildred O. Vasaris. My address is 15530
Middlebelt Road, Livonia. This is a petition seeking to rezone the property
located herein from RUF zoning to OS. It is the intention of myself and Rose
Dasaro, after closing, to eventually erect a professional office structure on the
premises keeping in line with the natural serenity of the property as well as the
commercial and business environment. We have already done so on occasion
on Middlebelt Road in Livonia and we would like to erect a structure that
would comport with all zoning and ordinance regulations and also be for
17292
professional use, accounting, legal and manufacturers representatives; that sort
of thing.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: Do you have an idea of the size of building you wish to put on the site.
Mr. Semaan: I would imagine it would have to comport with the size of the lot. The lot is
currently 20,000 sq. ft. With my discussions with the City, approximately
4,000 to 4,500 sq. ft., depending on the structure. The structure would be on
the west side of the property where there would be a screen wall to provide
privacy for the neighboring resident. The utilities would be placed behind the
property, behind the building itself The building itself would be a one story
structure with glass and brick and would more than likely be owner occupied.
Of course, in that situation there would only be suitable Class A tenants.
Currently we have a similar structure on Middlebelt in Livonia and our traffic
pattern is quite light given the fact that all clients who attend the building are
on an appointment basis. That would be our intention. Also, there are some
beautiful trees and shrubbery on the property and we would like to work with
our contractor to preserve some of these in order to keep the natural serenity of
the area. What brought my attention to this property was the fact that the
engineering building next to the proposed site and of course the seniors facility
has maintained the natural serene environment and I would like to try and
accomplish the same.
Mr. Shane: Your other building that you mentioned on Middlebelt, is that on the east side
of Middlebelt south of this other one.
Mr. Semaan: It is on the east side of Middlebelt next to the Henry Ford Optometry and the
car wash.
Mr. Shane: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Why did you choose that piece of property?
Mr. Semaan: I chose that piece of property for the location. It is an excellent location for
commerce, Middlebelt Road. I had personal experience from this as my law
firm is currently located on Middlebelt Road and it is a very good traffic
pattern in the area and there is a good deal of commercial activity on the street
currently itself.
Mr. Piercecchi: You realize that if your building was erected on Wentworth and Middlebelt,
that you would sandwich in three existing homes that are north of you, lots
277, 278 and 279 and do you realize that this would encourage other requests
similar to that and we may end up with the entire area there in OS property and
it really isn't needed in that area.
r•• Mr. Semaan: I would beg to differ with you. I believe there is a need for professional
service locations on Middlebelt Road. I believe that there are many
17293
professionals looking for locations on Middlebelt who would fall clearly within
the category or an OS designation. That particular location on Middlebelt still
has Wentworth as the side street for the neighboring residents and there is
sufficient commercial activity to warrant the designation.
Mr. Piercecchi: Hopefully there will be someone from that area that can speak.
Mr. LaPine: Did you make any inquiries about those three parcels to the north, about
buying them?
Mr. Semaan: No, I have not. The only parcel I am interested in is the parcel at Wentworth
and Middlebelt.
Mr. LaPine: I have the same feeling as Mr. Piercecchi. If we are going to rezone this lot to
OS, then my way of thinking would be that all four lots should go OS and
maybe we would have one building across the four lots. My fear is that once
we rezone that parcel, the other three people are going to put their parcels up
and will want the OS zoning too. This may result in a separate building on
each lot so there would be four buildings there. If all four lots were bought by
one developer, we could get one building there.
Mr. Semaan: I would understand that line of thought. I cannot speak for what the other
adjoining property owners may intend to do at this time. I am looking at this
parcel for what I would propose to do in the near future and I think it would
meld in well at that location between Five and Six Mile Road. I think it would
'N` provide a benefit at the location. From my understanding from Mr. Vasaris
and Mrs. Vasaris's son, there was some discussions, and I don't know who may
be here this evening to shed some light in that regard, but there was an
agreement with respect to the rezoning of that particular parcel. I have
included that in my petition.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Hale: Have you had an opportunity to meet with any of the neighbors?
Mr. Semaan: No I have not met with the neighbors. I know Mr. Vasaris had discussed some
of the issues with the neighbors and shared with me the fact that there was an
agreement with respect to the rezoning at that location.
Mr. Hale: You current building, is it two stories or is it one?
Mr. Semaan: One and a half stories serviced by an elevator for 80 year requirements. This
particular parcel is 20,000 sq. ft. so there would be no reason to have a single
story structure which would accommodate 4,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any more questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will
go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or
17294
against this petition? Since there is no one, I will close the Public Hearing. A
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and denied, it was
#11-201-99 RESOVLED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
23, 1999, by the Planning Commission on Petition 99-9-1-13 by Anthony J.
Semaan and Rose Dasaro on behalf of Mildred O. Vasaris requesting to rezone
property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Wentworth
Avenue and Puritan Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 14 from RUF to OS, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
99-9-1-13 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That existing commercial and office zoning along Middlebelt Road
between Five Mile and Six Mile Roads adequately provides for office
uses in this area;
2) That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a need for additional office
services in this area;
3) That the proposed change of zoning would tend to encourage future
requests for similar zoning changes along the west side of Middlebelt
Road immediately north of the subject area; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the Future Land
Now Use Plan designation of low density residential land use for the subject
area.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Shane, LaPine, Koons, Piercecchi, Alanskas
NAYS: Hale
ABSENT: McCann
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. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #3 PETITION 99-9-1-15 GENERAL PROPERTIES CO., L.L.C.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-1-15.by General
Properties Co., L.L.C. requesting to rezone property located immediately west
of Sunset Subdivision between Fargo Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the N.W.
`- 1/4 of Section 2 from RUF to R-3.
17295
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
v` Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: The Planning Department did receive a letter from E. C. Schubiner, dated
November 18, 1999. He states: "I will be unavailable to attend the rezoning
meeting on November 23, 1999 and respectfully request that we be allowed to
attend your December 14, 1999 meeting. Your cooperation and approval will
be most appreciated." and there is one other item of correspondence from the
Engineering Division, dated October 27, 1999, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal
or the legal description contained therein. We would like to point out that all
utilities will need to be extended, at the developers expense, to service the
proposed subdivision. We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer.
Mr. Alanskas: Even though this is going to be tabled, we will still hold the Public Hearing
since it has been advertised. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Holly Aiken, 20230 Sunset. I live across the street with my husband and I have two sets of my
neighbors. We have concerns over the reputation of the company. I have tried
to call them. They haven't responded back to me. I just wanted some
information before so we could come to the meeting. They haven't responded
back. We had problems with our builder on the street we currently live on. We
don't want to go through any of that again and I would just like the company to
respond back to me.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you sure you have the right number?
Mrs. Aiken: Yes. I was given the number by the City
Mr. Alanskas: If you need help getting a hold of them, maybe our staff would be able to help
you if you want to call there and maybe they can tell you what is a better time to
call there. Or maybe they can call for you and have the petitioner call you.
Mrs. Aiken: We also have concerns if they would be putting up a privacy fence. I know
they are not here to speak, but that apartment building complex is hidden by
trees.
Mr. Alanskas: Tonight is only a zoning issue.
Mrs. Aiken: I was saying as far as
Mr. Alanskas: Sure. We want to hear every concern that you have.
Mrs. Aiken: Thank you.
17296
Robert Hill, 20242 Sunset. I was wondering just how many houses you are planning putting
r..
here?
Mr. Alanskas: I believe it is 11.
Mr. Hill: We have 10 on our side. So you are going to squeeze 11 houses in there?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes. I don't think the term is squeezing. It goes by ordinance. It would fit it
very nicely.
Mr. Hill: Another thing is that street. You aren't going to continue that street through, are
you?
Mr. Alanskas: At this time we don't know. Tonight is only a zoning. If it goes through or
doesn't, of course it is tabled, but when we do vote on this it will come back to
us as a site plan.
Mr. Hill: Can I make a point then. I wouldn't like to have that street continue through
that development.
Mr. Taormina: I just would like to point out that we do have a preliminary plan available for
your review and at the present time it does not show the street extending
through. It shows some slight modifications to the geometry of the cul-de-sac
which would be at the north end but there are no plans to extend the road.
Vim..
Mr. Hill: Did you say changes to the cul-de-sac on the north end?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Hill: What kind of changes?
Mr. Taormina: They would modify the paving in the west corner by slightly adjusting the
alignment of the curb there. It is difficult to describe but you are more than
welcome to review the plans.
Mr. Alanskas: It is to make it a little larger too, isn't that right Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: It is widened a little bit to accommodate the lots that would be placed in the
northwest corner of the parcel because those are somewhat pie shaped.
Mr. Hill: Do you mind if I take a look at that tonight.
Mr. Alanskas: You can come to the Planning Office and they will be glad to show it to you.
Mr. Shane: You can have my copy.
'N.., Mr. Alanskas: That can change. It is just a preliminary and it is not cast in stone.
Mr. Hill: Just for the record, I am in Lot 9 there. Is this mine to keep?
17297
Mr. Alanskas: You can have that.
Mr. Hill: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Shirley Miller, 20150 Sunset. I would like to let my neighbors know that because this gets
changed here, this property can change hands three times, at least, because that
is exactly what happened to theirs. The original petitioner is not the one that
built their homes and that changed hands. Once it has been rezoned anybody
can buy it.
Mr. Alanskas: True. Thank you.
Scott Aiken, 20230 Sunset. I have a question. Are there any plans on what type of homes
these will be or what price range will be?
Mr. Alanskas: At this time we don't know because this is strictly for rezoning. It could be
ranches. It could be colonials. We have no idea.
Mr. Aiken: They mentioned December 14. The builder is going to make himself available?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes sir.
r..
Mr. Aiken: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Hill: What can I do to stop this? This lady just mentioned that it changes hands? Are
we going to have problems down the road?
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, I don't know because we are not dealing with that. It is very proper that
when something gets rezoned and someone wants to develop it, and someone
comes along and says I want to take it off your hands and I'll do it for you. At
the present time it is General Properties.
Mrs. Koons: He asked if they could change the plans.
Mr. Alanskas: No they cannot. They would have to come before us to do this. If there was
any change in the plan, we would see it.
Mr. Taormina: Besides having an opportunity to appear at the December 14 meeting to voice
your support or objection to the proposal, following the rezoning, plans will be
submitted either as a subdivision plat or as a site plan that will go through a
similar type of review process. It would be at that time that the Planning
Commission would delve into the details with respect to the lot sizes,
configurations and types of homes.
Mr. Hill: Prices?
17298
Mr. Taormina: Typically, there is information provided at that time relative to the price of the
homes and the type of construction.
r..
Mr. Hill: Another question. When these homes are built, they will help our value, right?
Mr. Alanskas: Being you are so close, I would certainly hope so.
Mr. Hill: But if they build houses, I don't know if you were here how they mentioned they
had problems with their houses.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, we have nothing to do with that.
Mr. Hill: But you guys are going to let the contractors come in.
Mr. Alanskas: We would have more information for you on the December 14, 1999 meeting.
Mr. Hill: December 14?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Hill: Thanks.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Mr. LaPine: Mark, we haven't received any information back from the Fire Department
about Morlock going through. Normally, the Fire Department and Police
Department likes two entrances and two exits into a subdivision in case a road is
blocked and they have to get in there with fire equipment or emergency
equipment. I am surprised they haven't said anything about Morlock going
through. Maybe we haven't gotten any information back yet?
Mr. Taormina: To date, we have not received a response from the Police or Fire Departments
but we will seek their advice prior to the December 14t meeting.
Mr. LaPine: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: If there is no one else wishing to speak for or against this petition, I will close
the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved is was
#11-202-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
23, 1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-9-1-15 by General
Properties Co., L.L.C. requesting to rezone property located immediately west
of Sunset Subdivision between Fargo Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the N.W.
1/4 of Section 2 from RUF to R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby
‘4611P.•
recommend that Petition 99-9-1-15 be tabled to December 14, 1999.
17299
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. For the people in the audience this is for December 14, 1999. It
r.. might be a good idea to call our Planning staff a few days before.
ITEM #4 PETITION 99-10-1-16 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Hale, Secretary. announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-1-16 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and Council Resolution
#673-99 proposing to rezone certain property located on the west side of
Farmington Road north of Seven Mile Road (the former Fire Station No. 3 site
and the adjacent residential parcel to the south) in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 4 from
PL and RUF to OS.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Engineering Division, dated October 28, 1999, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal
',guar
at this time. The following legal description should be contained therein: That
part of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of
Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan more particularly described as beginning at a
point distant North 00°00'50" West. 825.00 feet and South 89°57'10" West from
the Southeast corner of Section 4 and proceeding thence South 89°57'10" West,
441.20 feet; thence North 00°00'50" West. 180.00 feet; thence North 89°57'10"
East, 441.20 feet; thence South 00°00'50" East, 180.00 feet to the point of
beginning. We trust this will provide you with the information requested." The
letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Being that we are the petitioner, is there anyone from the audience wishing to
speak in regards to the rezoning?
Sam Baki, 36700 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. I am one of the residential developers
in the area. I looked at this petition and I looked at this site. I think this site will
be more feasible to be rezoned into an RC instead of an office. I have a few
reasons for it. I believe the City's intention is to generate the highest value they
can get for the land. That is number one and the best use for the land, that is
another one, and generate taxes for whatever will be erected on this site will be
feasible to be used and the revenues out of that site should be helpful too. I did
some preliminary plans on an office zoning like is petitioned at this time. We
are talking between 18,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. building could be erected on a 1.8
acres which is the overall size of this site. With 18,000 sq. ft., the value of the
land, I understand, is going to be almost equal to the RC value if it gets appraised
and goes out for bids. The 18,000 sq. ft. office building, if it is a regular office
17300
will generate between $30,000 and $35,000 per year after it is sold if a site got
'vier erected on this property for 18,000 sq. ft. If it goes for medical, it will generate
about $35,000. It will not exceed $40,000 for even a medical, that is a yearly
revenue on the medical assessments. If it goes condos, we can generate a
minimum of$45,000 plus. It depends on the values of the condos and the
quantities that we can put in. Because of that, I feel this site will be feasible
which is a better use than to have an RC instead of office especially when you
have residential to the north which is R-7, which is multiples. To the west is R-2
and the east, which is across the street is residential, which I believe is R-3. The
only commercial is on the south side which is regular commercial, it is not an
office zoning.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Bald, you know we are not here to discuss dollars. We are here
to determine if it is better on Farmington Road to have office services or
residential?
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Bald, in your thinking and planning, how many condos do you think would
go in there?
Mr. Baki: It depends on which value we are going to go after for condos with respect to
square footage. If we go 1600 or 1700 sq. ft. we can go about 14 units. If we
go, like I did on Farmington Road on the north and closer to Norfolk, which
everybody is aware of, I put in nine units generating 255 to 275 a unit but that
was an R-3 zoning. On this site, the minimum can go 11 or 12 units, on a large
Nair scale, which I am talking about 2100 sq. ft., story and a half or 2000 sq. ft. units
or 1600 sq. ft. which is more quantity. But the minimum value will generate 3
million dollars in sales.
Mrs. Koons: Are you concerned about marketing next to McDonald's?
Mr. Bald: No, I am not.
Mrs. Koons: Why?
Mr. Bald: If you remember my condition on the north end on my property, I have a medical
building next door and what I did was I put trees and saw what people would
like. It depends what you are going to build there and what kind of value you
are looking for but it will still be feasible for it.
Mrs. Koons: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't wish to debate with Mr. Bald but I appreciate your interest in this
property and what would be the best for Livonia as far as taxes and needs but I
can't agree with you for two reasons. Number one, south of that property is a
McDonald's that is zoned C-2. North of that property is the Deerfield Woods
Apartments which is an R-7. That in itself is o.k., however, at their southern
`��► border are carports and any condos or things of that nature that you would put in
there would have to look at them. That was considered when we were looking at
17301
the property trying to make a judgment on that property. Those are the two
Nee. reasons why I don't think it is a good idea.
Mr. LaPine: You make some valid points no doubt about it but in my way of thinking, the
way Mr. Piercecchi pointed out, we've got R-7s to the north, we've got C-1 and
C-2 to the south but the OS gives it a buffer and I think that is what we need here
at this point. Quite frankly I think you would have a hard time marketing these
next to a McDonald's. That is my opinion. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shane: I agree Mr. Baki makes some valid points and I would certainly make a case for
either one of these zonings. I am a little concerned about McDonald's and I am
concerned about the view to the north. On the other hand, condominiums would
fit right in, to the apartments to the north. I think either one would probably
work here and I am not totally satisfied with either one. I think we ought to table
it and take a look at the master plan and take a deeper look into these two issues.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Baki, thank you for expressing your opinion. Is there anyone else in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I will
close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and approved, it was
#11-203-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
�r.. Planning Commission on November 23, 1999, on Petition 99-10-1-16 by the
City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the
zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and Council Resolution
#673-99 proposing to rezone certain property located on the west side of
Farmington Road north of Seven Mile Road (the former Fire Station No. 3 site
and the adjacent residential parcel to the south) in the S.E.1/4 of Section 4 from
PL and RUF to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 99-10-1-16 be tabled to January 4, 2000.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Shane, Koons, Piercecchi, Alanskas, Hale
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: McCann
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #5 PETITION 99-10-1-17 LEO SOAVE
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-1-17 by Leo
Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail
‘`'" between Stark Road and Farmington Road in the S.E.1/4 of Section 33 from
RUF to R-1 B.
17302
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
r...
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one letter from the Engineering Division dated October 28, 1999
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. However,
we would like to point out that we would not issue a permit for this development
without permits to construct the proposed subdivision to the east of this location.
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Charles Tangora, I represent Leo Soave, 33300 Five Mile Road. As the Commission probably
remembers. I represented the American Four who is directly to the east of this
property and also Leo Soave who is east of that property. Both of those petitions
are pending at the City Council and we in fact came down from the Streets,
Roads and Plats committee meeting tonight with the Council and actually
reviewed the streets for those three parcels. Mr. Soave has purchased that one
parcel that is under review tonight and we intend to develop this as one total
development. American Four and Mr. Soave have been meeting with Mr.
,` Taormina and worked out the interior road situation and we are proceeding on
that basis. The Council will be given these two other petitions, first reading
week after next, so obviously that is a little bit before this one here. Of course,
Mr. Soave was not able to close on this piece of property until about a month and
a half ago so he finally tied it up. We intend to develop it as one total
development. They will be site condos as the other two parcels will be. It was
entirely the same zoning classifications as the other two parcels that are not
being considered. As far as the street situation, there is one entrance and only
one entrance into the three parcels, so I think that is a plus. So anything that you
can go, if you could give consideration to approving this, or if there is any way
of speeding this process up so we can this one up with the other two petitions, we
certainly would appreciate it.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: How many homes will be in this unit when these other two petitions are
handled by the Council?
Mr. Tangora: I think twenty-six sites. I am not absolutely sure but that is what it looks like
right now.
Mr. Piercecchi: This will complete then all the empty spaces really along Ann Arbor Trail?
Mr. Tangora: Exactly.
17303
Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you right that you said there is only going to be one road. I was
under the impression that there was a road coming in off of Ann Arbor Trail plus
raw we were going to cut through the Trillium Court.
Mr. Tangora: Trillium Court will go through and there will be one road coming in off of Ann
Arbor Trail.
Mr. LaPine: So there will be two roads?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: That is what I thought. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Any more questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to the
audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Robert Finn, 32849 Indiana. I would like to speak against the petition, basically for two main
reasons. One is I believe it is going to have an adverse impact on the park that is
right to the north of the area. We have a natural wetland. We have a lake there
with various types of wildlife. If you look at the property that was developed to
the east of this area you will see that people are already hacking away at the
underbrush and trees are being cut down. I think the same thing is going to
happen if this development goes through. Also, in addition to that, it is the most
�.. densely populated area of the City. I don't think the infrastructure is there to
support any more development. If you go down Ann Arbor Trail during rush
hour, you can find yourself in a quarter mile backup trying to turn at Wayne
Road there. I think this will make the situation a lot worse.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, did you say you live on Indiana?
Mr. Finn: That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: How far are you from the petition?
Mr. Finn: Less than half a mile.
Mr. Alanskas: I am looking at our map and I don't see any Indiana on here.
Mr. Finn: It is right at Farmington Road.
Mr. Taormina: It is just off our map.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
17304
#11-204-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on November 23, 1999, on Petition 99-10-1-17 by Leo
N•.- Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail
between Stark Road and Farmington Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 33 from
RUF to R-1B, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 99-10-1-17 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with other recent
rezoning requests in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing
character of the area;
3) That the requested zoning classification presently occurs on properties
along Ann Arbor Trail to the south and east of the subject property; and
4) That the proposed zoning change would allow for the use of the subject
property in conjunction with other adjacent properties for a coordinated
and comprehensive development that would constitute an extension of
the existing subdivision to the east.
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. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #6 PETITION 99-10-1-18 WARD EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-1-18 by Ward
Evangelical Presbyterian Church on behalf of Phoenix Land Development
requesting to rezone property located on the Southeast corner of the intersection
of Six Mile and Farmington Roads between Bloomfield Drive and Six Mile
Road from RUF to C-1 and R-8II.
Mr. Bill Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are 17 items of correspondence, including 13 letters that are in support
of this petition and one letter in opposition to the proposal. There are two other
letters I would classify as being neutral. The last item of correspondence is
from the City Engineer who recommends a slight modification to the legal
description as it relates to this property. It is dated October 28, 1999 and reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed
the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to
17305
the proposal at this time. The legal descriptions contained therein are correct
with the exception of the last bearing on parcel "B". The Bearing currently
reads "North 00°37" East", and the correct bearing should be North 00°13'37"
East. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The
letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence. Each of the Commissioners should have a copy of all the
correspondence the Planning Department has received in their packets this
evening. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
John Baird, Executive Director of Ward, 40000 Six Mile Road, Northville, MI 48160.
Actually I am here tonight on behalf of the Church's Board of Elders. This is a
group of 33 men and women who are elected by the congregation and they
serve as the trustees of the corporation and they have other leadership duties as
well. One of the main things I would like to do tonight, in a few minutes is
introduce Mr. Steve Schafer who is one of the principals of the Phoenix Land
Development and he will give you a complete description of the proposal. But
I would like to take just a minute or two to give you just a little background as
to why this particular proposal is being brought forward for your consideration.
For a period of about the last year, Ward has received no offers on this
particular piece of property. This past summer we received, in a very short
period of time, five offers. It was a very unusual spurt of activity after a very
long dry spell. The Board was able to sort through all five of those offers at
r.. the same time and I want to give you a little perspective on what the Board was
facing. Two of those offers would have resulted, if all approvals had been
gained, in a charter school. In doing our homework on that particular potential
development, we learned that the school district is very strongly opposed to
charter schools, for reasons they can articulate quite well. One of the offers
was, we believe, for an all commercial development. The developer was
nonspecific but it had the appearances of all commercial. The fourth offer was
for 50% commercial and 50% residential. The fifth offer which you'll learn
about here in just a minute from Phoenix Land Development is approximately
75% residential and about 25% commercial. So in reviewing these particular
alternatives, the Board very much wanted to recognize the interests of the
community and the interests of Ward at the same time, trying to strike a
balance in what is best for all parties. This is the offer that we are bringing
forward for your consideration. You'll note that I did not mention any offers
from churches. Our first preference for the three years that this building has
been up for sale would be to sell to a church. We have not received any offers
from financially viable churches. As a result, we bring this proposal forward
for your consideration with our belief that it is a reasonable proposal. With
that I would like to turn the podium over to Mr. Steve Schafer. Steve is one of
the principals of Phoenix Land Development.
Steve Schafer, 32000 Northwestern Hwy., Farmington Hills. We are before you tonight for the
rezoning of the Ward Church property. We've had quite some time to analyze
our development plan and we are prepared to show you our concepts of that
this evening. There have been several revisions to this plan. Essentially we
17306
have developed a plan which we feel represents the rezoning we are here for
tonight. The corner property is proposed to be a drug store; on the corner, a
Walgreens. I do have some elevations I would like to show you this evening.
The rear portion of the property is proposed to be a townhouse style project
with brick and limestone, similar to what we are currently constructing, Glen
Oaks on 13 Mile near Orchard Lake. This plan currently represents about 128
units. We are asking tonight for R-8II. That designation does allow for
substantially more units. I would anticipate that as we move through the site
plan approval process there will be some comments and issues that we will
need to address. We have had an opportunity to meet with some of the
neighborhood groups. After we had done this conceptual, there were some
suggestions and recommendations and we plan on working with those
individuals to try to satisfy the issues that have been raised. So I think there is
going to be a change potentially in the amount of units and in the way it is
configured before we are done with the process here. I do have some
brochures by the way of West Village that I can pass out. If anyone is
interested, somebody could give you one here by the podium. The corner site
which we are requesting to be rezoned to C-1. I believe the prior proposal for
this site was a C-2 zoning designation. We are looking for C-1. The type of
use that we are proposing would fit into that designation. As you can see by
the elevations, this is an all brick structure. The elevation is actually a little bit
light. We would be using something of a reddish brick that would match the
elevations of the residential, that I will show you in a moment, so it does tie in.
This is a more neighborhood prototype that we are working with here versus
your glass tower store that you have seen or the big dryvit store that you have
seen at other locations. This building is primarily all brick. This area here
shows a wood fence. This has now been changed to be a masonry type fence.
Again, we will be addressing those issues in the site planning process. What
we do want to show you is that we are bringing a very high quality structure
and probably the best operator in the drug store business in the country. They
have been around over 100 years. They have very specific prototypes they
build. They don't expand and buy other drug chains. They are a company that
has grown over many many years. In perspective, CVS has approximately
4,200 stores nationally and Walgreens has, in the area of 2700 stores and the
amount of volume that CVS does is about $15. 5 billion a year and Walgreens
is about $15.4 billion a year and it really goes to show that the shopper that
goes into a Walgreens comes out with more merchandise than typically some
of the other drug stores. Not that they bring in anymore traffic, but their sales
per customer are much higher. This is a neighborhood use. There is one two
miles away so I would assume that basically people in the general vicinity will
benefit from the drug store location. I know some of you have seen this in the
past but in case you haven't these are the residential units that we have actually
constructed in the West Village project. If you go by the Glen Oaks project,
you will notice a lot of differences, a lot of upgrades that have been done on
the elevations on these units. Now we are putting in brick staircases whereas
before they were poured concrete. We also have some additional cut stone, a
different cut stone we are using on the buildings and again I have invited some
of the neighbors to come down and take a look at the units as well. That
basically is what we are proposing here tonight. We did have a traffic study
17307
that was done and it indicated that we are not going to be putting any additional
burden on the area and actually there are some improvements that could occur
in the traffic patterns because of the church use and the way it was used
compared to this type of use and that has been submitted to the City.
Mr. Alanskas: Will you go into your traffic study a little bit more fully?
Mr. Schafer: I would be happy to give you the conclusion if you would like to hear it. We
analyzed all the turn movements obviously and they commented on the work
that is currently being done on the road.
Mr. Alanskas: And the hours and the peak hours.
Mr. Schafer: Conclusions and Recommendations. This is essentially on page 25 of the
Traffic Report. They have gone through all the calculations. The traffic
impact study performed for the proposed multi-family residential/retail
commercial development at the southeast corner of Farmington and Six Mile
Roads intersection has resulted in the following conclusions: The P.M. peak
hour of adjacent roadways will be the worst scenario. When they did this
report, they recognized that the worst peak time was in the evenings, obviously
on the way home. The second comment - the driveways for the proposed
multi-family residential and retail/commercial development are well placed
and are desirable from the traffic operations point of view. The driveways
should be designed as per all appropriate county and city standards. The
capacity analysis performed as part of this study indicated that the intersection
r..
of Farmington and Six Mile Road is currently operating at a level of service.
"C during the mid-day peak hour and "D" during the p.m. peak hour. A
capacity analysis was performed using future traffic conditions; using existing
alternative design for signal timing. This analysis produced even better
operations as compared to the current condition. This was achieved by using a
revised signal timing plan than what is currently being used on the site. The
annual crash frequency at the intersection is quite reasonable for such an
intersection. A critical review of the three year history of traffic crashes
indicated predominance of angle and rear-end crashes. This is easily mitigated
by providing a 1.5 second all red phase in between the major change intervals
in the traffic signal timing. The project as presented in this report will not
deteriorate either the level of service or the level of safety at the intersection of
Farmington of Six Mile Road and the multi-family residential development
will act as a natural buffer to the commercial development and the existing
single family residential developments in the area. This was prepared by
Goodell-Grivas, Inc., 29200 Vasser Avenue, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Is there anything else you want to give the Commission?
Mr. Schafer: Not at this time. I just want to indicate it is our intention to deliver a very high
quality residential for sale development here. I might want to mention that the
sale of these units will definitely be upscale and the prices we are anticipating
would probably be starting in the upper 160's for a ranch style unit and over
$200,000 for the townhouse style unit. They have been very good sellers for
17308
us. We are finding that typically we are drawing people right from the
community that are looking for some other alternative life style. Getting out of
a single family home and getting into something with a little less maintenance.
So this really offers a new type of housing opportunity within the community.
I think you will see that a lot of the people will be Livonia residents.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I
will go to the audience. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition,
please come forward.
Joe Saylor, 32924 Bobrich Court, Livonia, Michigan. I have just a few concerns I want to
voice. First of all, I had a big speech planned but I am not going to say it
because the items before us kind of changed my mind. Would a Walgreens
make a townhouse any more sellable than a McDonald's? That was my first
question. Rhetorical- you don't have to answer it. It just came to my mind.
Mr. Alanskas: Fist of all sir, this is a C-1. McDonald's would be C-2. Does that answer your
question?
Mr. Saylor: Thank you. The townhouses do look beautiful. We do need to do something
with that corner. Obviously Wards is having a hard time selling it to a church
as I think everyone would want to happen. I am not blind to that fact that we
need to do something with this. But it is still commercial. The little 25%
corner is still commercial. That still has a big concern in my head. I
understand the traffic study said the traffic would not be affected. You are
N"' putting in how many units, 128?
Mr. Alanskas: At the maximum, but it could be less.
Mr. Saylor: I don't see how it can't add to the congestion. It is physically impossible not to
add to the congestion. Other than that I would just stand up here babbling so I
am going to turn the microphone over to some people.
Geraldine Joyner, 32814 Indiana. Coming up in just a few weeks, we will have lived there for
40 years. The proposal that you have under consideration before you tonight is
a good one and it is my intention to set forth some of the reasons for asking
you to do whatever is possible to expedite the action which will permit the
project to get under way as soon as possible. Many Livonia residents, like
myself, are now reaching the time of their lives when they wish to either
downsize their living quarters or find it difficult to accommodate their older
life styles in their present home. Some of my friends and neighbors are
moving to other communities because they have found it necessary only
because there is not a sufficient number of accessible and affordable housing
available in Livonia. We all know what a fine City we have. We know what
fine people we have in our leadership position and many of us want to remain
as Livonia citizens. The location of this project has a number of advantages
that residents that will be living in these condos could take advantage of
including the multi-commercial strip shops adjacent to the property across the
street. When Mr. Schafer mentions Walgreens, may I remind everyone who is
17309
listening and everyone who is in this auditorium that one of the advantages is
that Walgreens does not sell liquor and you are not going to have any drop-ins
at any hour of the day or whatever hours the store is open. I think that is a
plus. I am well aware that this is an agenda item for zoning only, however, it is
very difficult for me to separate the zoning from the ultimate development of
the land. I appreciate the opportunity of addressing you. I could go on for a lot
of other things that might be said about this but I think that the Ward property
has been sitting long enough and it is time for us to reap the benefits of putting
it back on the tax rolls and having something that we can be proud of. Thank
you, Mr. Alanskas.
Kurt Kinde, 16556 Bell Creek. The day after I saw the sign go up at the Ward property, I went
from mail box to mail box to call a neighborhood meeting to find out how the
residents felt. We did that once before with the Farmer Jack issue. As I
approached the last mail box there was a city worker that was working on
cleaning up the leaves and he asked me what I was up to and I told him and he
said you know I have worked in the City for X number of years and if you start
a petition, I would like to sign it. We have enough commercial property that is
vacant. We don't need another piece zoned that way. At that point I thought
that pretty well sums up what I needed to establish today. Number one, that it
is neat to have a City that looks out for us; he was wondering what I was up to
and wanted to check. That was kind of reassuring. Number two, it was nice to
have the support. But the real issue came when he looked down the street and
saw all the leaves to be picked up. He said, you know, I pick these leaves up
•., like it was my own street. He picked up leaves and I thought, so what. But I
looked in his eyes and I realized that this man meant it. So he picks up those
leaves year after year after year as if he lived on that street. That is the way I
think we need to vote. When it comes times to look at a rezoning issue, would
you wish to walk out on your back yard and look up at what could be an eight
story building. That is the zoning you are allowing here. A neighbor called me
and said what is going to happen to our sunsets? I said sunsets? He said if it is
eight stories and it is in your back yard, sunset will be around three o'clock in
the afternoon. So there are a number of concerns. I know this is a tough job
and I know you don't do it for the money and you certainly don't do it for glory
and thank you for doing what counts. I would assume there are three factors,
one is the past, one is the present and one is the future. As you look at the past,
I am assuming that one factor there is the city plan and as the people try to
figure out where we needed industrial, light industrial, commercial, residential
and the RUF, they had a concept here. I would suggest that that concept was a
good one and to go from RUF to an R-8 is a tremendous leap. To go from
RUF to C-1 is a tremendous leap. I think anytime you want to make a leap,
you have to do it very cautiously and that is what I would recommend. A
summer ago we looked at Fanner Jack and a number of my neighbors and
myself felt it was inevitable. In fact the Farmer Jack spokes people felt that it
was. We rallied and made some contacts and that proposal was defeated.
There was a sense of celebration. Folks went home and threw their no-
commercial signs away and thought that was past. Of course, it wasn't so that
brings us back here tonight. The temptation might be to say Fanner Jacks is
gone and we lost that revenue but we didn't. They relocated on Seven Mile
17310
Road. They went to where one of the spokes people said they would like a
Farmer Jacks and they occupied a building that was vacant as a result of the
wars between HQ, Home Depot and Builder's Square and so on. I think a good
thing happened. Right after the meeting someone came up to me and said why
did they propose this over the summer? If you want to get something through
without significant public reaction, you do it near the holidays. People are
preoccupied with Thanksgiving and Christmas. So if you want to suppress
public sentiment that is exactly when you propose something. Someone else
suggested to me, well it was timed for after the election. So there is a cloud, I
think, over the timing here. At the time I kind of blew off the reaction as if it
was irrelevant but it did come back to haunt me but the past often does, is to
haunt us. In the more recent past, the first word I had gotten was that Ward
Pres. was looking for a senior center. Virtually everyone I talked to said that
was a good idea. We need that and Ms. Joyner, this evening, spoke about the
• same thing. I am in the sunset years of my life. I would like to stay in the
community I have enjoyed for 40 years and that is a good thing. That was
consistent and everyone I spoke with said we need that. There isn't enough.
Let's do that. Then it became there will be some senior citizens there but it will
be sold to other people as well. Oh. There will be 129 units. Oh. It could go
eight stories. Oh. It could be and does include a commercial. Ohhh. So
nobody resisted the change. That was not an issue. They embraced the change
when they thought it meant community needs but as it expanded and took new
form, it became uglier and uglier. I think that grass roots support for the
program that was indicated earlier as a 13 to 1 vote, if we really fan that out
`.., and we took out the factor of early promotion over there at Ward Pres. and
really looked at immediate community members and how they felt about it. I
think the ratio would be significantly different. That brings us to the present. I
am assuming most decisions are rooted in need. Do we need more commercial
property? My suggestion is that we don't. That intersection alone, if you look
to the north, recently said goodbye to the IGA. Prior to that they said goodbye
to Danny's and the building sits there empty. If you look across to the
northwest, you see a beautiful bank building that is vacant. If you go for a
walk to the north, there is a tremendous Ardmore complex there being
vandalized, maybe as we speak. Really in any direction you want to walk
within a city block radius of that you'll see plenty of available commercial
property. Do we need another one? Not really. When I spoke with people in
the present, there was a reoccurring theme and it troubles me. One consist
theme among the tan gentle of owners, and I am very concerned with how they
feel and I have talked a long time with one of the most tangent people there,
was this is the least objectionable. I don't like it but given what could happen
there, a strip mall, another grocery store, this is not really that bad. Would you
like something else? Well, yes I would like attached condos or what it is zoned
for. Well why not fight for it. Why do you have to pick what is least
objectionable? Well, because of what could happen. Well, that is why you
are here to protect us against what could happen and assure us that we find
what is best that can happen and should happen. The next thing I heard was
'41ra. that Ward Pres. needs the money. I don't need to provoke laughter because I
do think they do good missions and I am not trying to demean that at all. My
understanding is that they bought the property for 3 million, sold it for 9
17311
million. That they have a mortgage for 4 million after paying off 36,000,000
million. I have a hard time embracing that as an issue. Granted if it was sold
Neer as non-commercial it won't bring the same money and when you don't bring
that same money, we are talking millions here, one or one and a half, maybe
even two, and I know that impacts on a program and I am sympathetic and I
am supportive of the fine work they do. I really am. But I live there. Are
there more desirable options? I think so. I have some very strong feelings
about what might have to happen in order to empower a church to buy that
property but it is probably irrelevant but I would like to just place that in the
consciousness of the many fine Ward Pres. people who are here. Also in the
recent history to the present, we did meet with the fine folks from Phoenix and
Steven, as I am sure you already felt is a super fellow. He is articulate,
personable, love to invite him over for Thanksgiving kind of guy. That makes
either acceptance or rejection much more palatable in many other ways. But
that is not the question whether or not you like him or like me or anything else.
Do you really like the proposal? Does it advance the cause of the City or does
it not? He was very frank at the meeting and I hate to brutalize people with
what they say but I think his frankness was sincere. At one point he said, I
think it would be better if I could build detached condos as it is zoned
currently and they would be beautiful. Someone queried, why don't you do
that? I can't because the kind of money they are looking at for that corner
would not be met with that kind of construction. Well, that is where we have
to do some belt tightening and perhaps sell it for what would be best as
opposed to what we would like to make. If my property were commercial, I
�... would look at $500,000. And I have 1.7 acres or something within four sites
of that ground, I would love that kind of money. But finally we have to look at
the future and I am going on too long, and thank you for being patient with me.
We have to ask where the City is headed. O.K.? I wish I had a crystal ball and
could look in it and let you all know, but I can't tell it any better than you. But
my guess is that the drug store battles will follow the lumber yard battles and
their position right across from CVS, or whatever they are called, once Arbor,
is to head on compete and probably try to knock out their opposing company.
HQ did it. Builders Square did it. Home Depot has done it, most successfully
but that is the nature of the game. I guess one or the other will be driven out of
business. And obviously the hope is that it is the other guy. I don't throw
magazines away very often. I was reading my August issue of Newsweek and
it said drug stores are on their way out anyway. If you want drugs or particular
pharmaceuticals you'll bring it up on your video screen, do a couple of clicks
and it will arrive at your doorstep. Commercialization is going to be different
and the idea of expanding commercial property as we stand before a whole
change of technology, I don't think is well advised. Of course, Steak and
Shake is also owned by Walgreens. They built right down the street. My
guess is there is adequate acreage there so that if they wanted to expand in that
direction that they could. Of course it would require the C-2 dive ration but
once you have C-1, C-2 is not quite the same leap. Other things like crash
ratios, I find personally unsettling. Traffic studies indicate well, it is within
tolerance. It is assuming it isn't your kid but as soon as it is, it is intolerable,
obviously. Two cars entering and exiting that on a daily basis plus the
Walgareen store, we are going to have a change of accident ratios which none
17312
of which is tolerable, most of which will be truly memorable. Thank you for
your time. It is a tough decision and I support wherever you head with this.
Vicky Varley, 16135 Bell Creek Court. My concerns are also too much commercial, also the
traffic and I do back up to the stream and I am concerned about more erosion
of my property from more runoff from more development. That is really all I
have to say.
Mona Emerson, 18850 Levan. I would like to address the gentleman's time factor on this
because I had several people that wanted to come here tonight who are really
all for the development going in there that this time is proposed but they are
leaving on planes for Thanksgiving vacations. So there are people that the
time factor also has impacted. I have taken the time to visit the West Village in
Dearborn and I want to say it is truly lovely. I even managed to talk to a few
people and they are very satisfied with it. I thought it was lovely myself and I
understand we are getting the upgraded version with the cut stone and the
copper covered bay window and I think that will just add to what I already did
see in Dearborn. Granted I know there are things, and I can understand how
the neighbors will be impacted by this will feel. Living on Levan, I have been
impacted by development. I can remember when they wanted to put the credit
union in the corner and I just thought this was going to be horrible. The traffic
would be worse. I wouldn't like this and when they put the Classic Hardware
in, I felt the same way. Let me tell you that I have been very very satisfied
with the development that went in close to me. I am very happy with the credit
union and I am very happy with Classic Hardware. I happen to go there
sometimes and they have things I want and need. Sometimes when we fear
things, sometimes the worse thing we have is the fear itself I can understand
because I have been in that situation. I am not going to repeat what Geraldine
Joyner said because she said it so adequately. She conveyed exactly the way I
feel about this because as you can see the hair is getting grayer. There too will
be coming a time when we too will not be able to keep up our home. I have
listened to the other condo developers that were here tonight and I can tell you
not one of them had what I wanted until I heard about the Phoenix Land
Development. I think if the neighbors who are opposed, they might take a look
in Dearborn they will be very mildly surprised and quite happy about the visual
impact it has. As far as Walgreens is concerned, Walgreens does have a good
reputation and they don't sell liquor and the people who are going to be moving
into that condo will probably be people like myself and they are not going to be
driving a lot anymore at night so you are not going to have the night traffic. I
think that in its self is something to consider. As far as traffic in the
metropolitan area, there isn't anywhere you can go, I travel 96 everyday. When
I started traveling 96 approximately 10 years ago, it was just like a pleasurable
drive. Today it is bumper to bumper and there isn't anything we can do to get
away from the traffic. So I think it is something we have to live with and I
know they would like another church there. The parking isn't adequate. If you
are going to spend that kind of money to build a church there you certainly
would think about building a new church with adequate parking. I know that
all of us would like to see those kinds of things but sometimes compromises
have to be made. As I said again, the compromises were made in my
17313
neighborhood with the credit union, of course I would have loved to have seen
housing there. It didn't go in but the credit union has been a fine neighbor and
�., I think from what I have understood from people who have lived near or
around a Walgreens they too are fine neighbors and I like the look of the
building. The building does blend in with its surroundings so sometimes, like I
said, we have to accept compromises and we have to look at what compromise
might be best for the people living near this, as I had to accept compromises in
my neighborhood. Thank you for listening.
Ruth Kibler, 34003 Burton Lane, Livonia. I don't live right on Six and Farmington. Actually,
I can't add a lot to what the gentleman already said because those are my
feelings, but I would like to just stress a couple of things that bother me. One
is the drug store. Why a drug store? We have drug stores, plenty of drug
stores. We had this problem with Farmer Jack. I spoke up at that meeting.
Why a grocery store when we have a grocery store? I really hate to say it, but I
shopped at Danny's. Danny's went under. Then IGA went under. I am still
glad we don't have Fanner Jack on the corner but I don't see the necessity of
the drug store and I don't know why that would be chosen. Something else
possibly? The condos look lovely. That I am not speaking against except for
the traffic addition. If you have 123 housing units, you are going to have more
than 123 cars concentrated in one area. What my objection had been prior to
this were the kids who were going to school, crossing over Six Mile and
Farmington, now we are adding all those cars and there will be people living in
those that do go out to work and they will be going when the kids go out and I
think this should be considered very very seriously. The accident report
sounded great. There haven't been too many accidents but we haven't had that
many cars sitting right there at that corner. O.K.? Thank you very much.
Kathleen Nemecek, 32815 Six Mile. I am probably two blocks east of the proposed
development. I am going to reiterate comments people have made but I think it
is important to stress again. Rezoning part of that parcel to C-1 we have two
C-1 properties north and northwest of that. There are both vacant, the
Danny's/IGA store is vacant now and the bank has been vacant forever in my
opinion. I banked there. They called me to tell me they were closing. We
have tried to have various commercial development take over that bank and
everything has fallen through. I am not sure why but we have vacant
commercial land there. With regard to the condominium development, when I
first heard condos I was so excited. I said detached condominiums, they are
going to increase the value of the area. We'll have neighbors. It will work out
well. Then I saw the proposal and I saw it was going to be proposed zoning
change. These condos built by the same company in the West Village area in
Dearborn, they are beautiful. There is no question. They are brick. They are
gorgeous. They are well maintained. They are extremely tall buildings. It is
an extremely concentrated area of development. There are court yards
basically that these condos face into. I have friends who live in these areas and
they do enjoy it but it is concentrated. It is like being in an apartment complex
almost. They don't have to maintain it but I can't stress enough how tall,
concentrated and it doesn't look like a tenement but my mind flashes back to
the concentration of tenements. Detached condominiums, that might be a good
17314
proposal. I am understanding that we need to make progress and we need to
move forward on that corner but we need to compromise and maybe the
compromise is to look at something that is closer to the rural urban farm than
what you are proposing right now. Thanks.
Mike Zatirka, 16831 Bell Creek Lane. We are one of the adjoining properties that backs up to
the church right now. If you've got your plot there, we are Lot 40. A year ago
my wife and I were here fighting against the Farmer Jack proposal but this
proposal isn't quite the same and this time we support it. We don't think it will
ever be residential right on that corner because there are three gas stations on
that corner and I realize people don't want to live near a drug store but nobody
will live near a gas station. The fact that most of the property will be
residential, we think is acceptable. We have two concerns that we want to
bring up that we would like you to address, if not tonight, then when you are
reviewing the site plans. Mr. Schafer has certainly shown a willingness to
address these but we would just like to get these on the record. First off, the
back of our property floods every spring and after every major rain and we
know the water is coming from Ward's driveway because of the gas and oil
floating on the water. It is not coming out of sky that way and Ward has a
huge flat roof, we are behind the gym which is flat, but that doesn't drain
towards out property line. We are afraid that these condos with a hip roof will
drain, at least part of the building, toward our line, so we are concerned that the
drainage is going to get worse than it is now so we would like that somehow
�.. addressed. The other thing we are really concerned about is something this last
woman brought up and that is the height of the buildings. Our block is entirely
one story buildings, all ranch houses and we are talking about multi-story
dwellings now. From almost any room in our house, we can see the back of
the church. We can see the entire property from our back yard but they can't
see us because there are no windows in the back of the church. When you put
up a townhouse that has windows you are going to be looking right in the back
of our house and into our yard. The privacy our large lots afford is the main
part of our property value so we are really worried about losing that privacy.
Mr. Schafer has talked about how he brought in 20 foot evergreens at his West
Bloomfield development to shield it and so we are confident that he can
address this problem but we really want you to know that that is a real issue for
us.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Taormina, do you know what the height of the church is at the present
time?
Mr. Taormina: It varies.
Mr. Alanskas: At the highest peak.
Mr. Taormina: I don't know the exact height, but I would say it approximates the maximum
height you would see with these buildings, if not being somewhat taller
because there are some features on the church that may be even higher.
17315
Mr. Alanskas: To that gentleman who talked earlier in regards to an eight story building. You
can be assured we are only talking between three and four stories and you
figure a story is 10 feet so you are talking probably talking a maximum of 40
feet.
Arthur Blake, 17671 Bell Creek. Presently, anyone living in our subdivision can barely get out
onto Six Mile. Traffic is backed up almost to Hubbard Road. There has been a
slight improvement with the road improvements but I am sure in two or three
years that improvement will be eliminated with more urban sprawl as you go
out towards Northville. By putting this concentration in, I cant conceive of
this drug store and all of this concentration of the traffic. It can't improve that
much, it is going to be about the same, as far as I am concerned. I am
wondering if there has been a second study or third study as far as the road
conditions or the traffic conditions?
Mr. Alanskas: There has been one study.
Mr. Blake: The gentleman for the development mentioned one study. Has there been other
studies, second opinions or third opinions?
Mr. Alanskas: No, I think we only have the one study. Mr. Taormina, is there just one?
Mr. Taormina: There is only one study involving the traffic.
Mr. Blake: I think there should be a second study or third study to take a closer look at that
situation. The other thing I am really concerned about is IGA folded. There is
an empty store there and the CVS, from they have told me in the other CVSs
and what you can observe if you go through the chain, I have been through a
lot of drug stores, is that that is a lower volume store. It was when Arbor was
there and it is presently. A drug store going in across the street inevitable one
of those drug stores is going fold and I think it is a strong possibility that the
Arbor Drug, now a CVS, across the street where Walgreens will be, will fold
up. There is a probability that if this development goes through with a drug
store, with a Walgreens Drug Store, there is a grocery store down on Merriman
that has been vacant for three or four years, and you could very well end up
with half or three quarters vacant shopping strip there in a few years. That is a
concern of mine. That just means lower property values and so forth. If you
are going to put some development where Ward Church is, it should be
something other than a drug store.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir,just to give you an example, and I am not here to debate you, but it's like,
do you want to get Sunoco gas or do you want Standard. You have a gas
station here, one here and one here. It is a matter of choice. For example, on
Newburgh and Joy we have two drug stores. We have a Walgreens and we
have a CVS and they are both doing very fine.
Mr. Blake: The economy is up. We don't know what is going to happen when a recession
comes. It will be like when you had all these giant box hardware stores and a
lot of them folded up. I am saying it is a probability. I am not saying it is a
17316
possibility and to me that possibility will be a greater possibility with a
Walgreens. I just feel if they are going to develop something it should be a
''i' non-drug store and it should be just one or two story condos. Thank you.
James Herman, 16693 Bell Creek Lane. I live near the property to be rezoned. I would just
like to remind the Commission that this is a rezoning issue about the property
to other than a RUF and currently even though we see some beautiful
renderings and hope for a nice project to go in there some day, that it is still
just a rezoning issue and it really doesn't make any promises that something of
this nature can be built on the property. It can always be resold. Once it is
rezoned it is basically opening a can of worms and no promises can be made
after that point. Right now on the street, we live under constant utility failure.
I feel that area of the City because of the age of the utilities and the support,
that we are already overtaxed on that causing outages constantly and I think a
development of this nature would just put more burden on that. I think even
though tonight's plan to have the condos, and they do look like they are
substantial as far as the appearance of them, I think the density of putting 128
units is much too high in that area. If you would like to stop by my house and
take a look out there and stare at that property and stare at the trees surrounding
it. even though the church is a tall structure, it is fairly well centered towards
the corner of the intersection. These condos would be very close to the
property line. Again, it is three to four stories in height and if you start looking
at that, it is towering basically the height of the trees of the acre lots that are
surrounding this property. I don't feel that would exactly be an eye appealing
thing for the residents to look at. If money is an issue as far as the
development and keeping this as it was proposed, as staying partially
commercial and partially residential, again I feel like the issue here is the
money for the church. It is only worth that money if it can go commercial
property. If it is not allowed to go commercial property, then the price the
church would be going for is definitely out of range of reality. If you start
looking at 8 acres available to build a strictly residential area, you look at the
developments at Newburgh and Seven Mile and most of that is luxury housing.
You look at our immediate area at Six and Farmington and it is rare to find a
house under $200,000. Most in that area are now approaching $250,000
$300,000 range and I don't really welcome the fact that someone can buy into
the subdivision that is substantially less than the market of the houses in the
surrounding area. Again, I wish the Commission would consider pushing that
that be a residential type area. I think the church should be obligated to its
members and the community to promises that were made years back, that it
would not affect the residents around there. That this should be turned back to
residential land and developed therefore in that capacity. Thank you.
(No name given/Nowicki) 33185 Broadmore Ct., Woodcreek Farms, which is just south of this
area. People in my subdivision who have gotten older have moved out and
bought condos but I don't believe they would buy this condo with its steps in
front and the garage in the back. I think older people would never buy condos
that look like this. This does not look like anything I have seen in Livonia.
This maybe Dearborn. This maybe Birmingham. This maybe Royal Oak but
this is not Livonia. I don't like the looks of them. I don't think they are condos
17317
that older would buy and I just don't think they would add to our area. When
we got a new drug store that went in at Five Mile and Merriman everybody
said what do we need another drug store for and it went in. Every time they
get in. When I went home to my husband and said this is what they are
planning to put in there. My husband looked and said why another blankety
blank drug store? We don't need them and I don't want one and it is not
necessary. If they can't come up with a better plan than this
Connie Roberts, 16711 Bell Creek Lane and I am standing in opposition to the proposal tonight
from Phoenix Land. I have a little speech here and it is kind of repetitious of
what Mr. Kurt Kinde said and a few other people. I can't really speak in
response to other speakers but I would like to bring attention to the fact that
Phoenix has already been given the green light to build two miles south on
Farmington Road at Plymouth Road. One of the speakers that spoke in favor
of this lives by that one and there is a shopping center near by and the residents
of that community could walk across the street to the Foodland and to the other
little shopping centers. We don't need the exact same thing two miles north
where there are no grocery stores and when we might have two drug stores
there wouldn't be anything to support that kind of living arrangement for a lot
of the people that live there. The people from Phoenix at their meeting said
that this development caters to empty nesters and young urban professionals.
Well we as a City just voted in a new rec center at Bentley and that is for
families and to draw families to our community and this is a wonderful
building, condos. They look great. They are extremely tall. As you spoke
�.,.. earlier , it is not consistent with the bordering neighborhoods. It doesn't fit in
this spot in the City. In Dearborn, on Michigan Avenue, where it is built, it is
next to railroad tracks. There is not a residential community nearby. Even on
the George Burns property. that was zoned industrial/commercial. There is no
residential property next door to this development. In Farmington Hills. there
is no residential. It is near a wetlands. In West Bloomfield the same story.
This is opening a Pandora's box of building in something that has a high
density of the population that will be living there, does not flow well with the
surrounding neighborhood. Not that I am standing here saying that I hate drug
stores and I hate condos, I am looking at the future of our city. I wasn't going
to speak tonight but the only thing that I keep going back, every time I drive
down Six Mile, if we as a people don't stand up, when I would tell people what
I wanted to come here and talk tonight and I said come on and they said well
because it is near Thanksgiving, like we talked about before. People are busy.
I am suppose to be home cooking for my family in two days. But instead I have
asked people to come and what are the responses I got, sure condos are better
than a Farmer Jack. Well if we don't say yes now, what comes next will be
even worse. So it's almost like a threat tactic. Are we suppose to say yes
because we are scared there is going to a Burger King. Some people had
sympathy for us and said oh that is too bad but we don't live near year so it's
O.K. There is nothing we can do. There is nothing you can do so don't even
go, you'll make a fool of yourself. Or, it's a done deal, you can't fight big
business. Big business always wins. Oh, it's a steamroller operation. It seems
Now
like everything has been going down. We as homeowners found out about 15
days before this meeting when the sign went up. We were not invited to the
17318
meeting at Stevenson High School. We contacted Phoenix and they said it was
an over sight on their part that all the residents on Bell Creek Lane were not
.�,,. invited. They sent out invitations. They said they sent out over a hundred. No
one on our street was invited, maybe two or three. Those people didn't come.
The people are afraid to come because they think there is nothing they can do.
All they have to do is drive down Six Mile, look at the cell phone towers sitting
in the middle of our Rotary Park and they will think back to when all of this
was going down with the Planning Commission and how that was all that was
approved and I didn't come and speak out against it so it's my own fault almost
that that is sitting there because that doesn't deserve to be in our park just like
this condo development doesn't deserve to be in our neighborhood. It deserves
to be built in a community that is zoned properly for a condo development. I
have no sympathy for Ward whatsoever. I am not against Ward as a church. I
am not against the development. People need to price things according to what
the market allows. I can't sell my house for more than it is worth. I can have a
'for sale' sign up forever. No one is going to buy it if I over price it. I can't
rezone my property. My neighbors will not allow it. I had to come to this City
six times to keep showing my plans for the fence I wanted to build because my
little back yard cuts really close to the road and the fence is suppose to be so
many feet back. You put so much attention to my fence, I would really hope, I
am not asking you to vote or to anything tonight. I want you to think more.
Just think more. We are not against compromise because we knew it would
come to this. This kind of a development is not good especially there is
Ardmore, 25 acres that could be built up. We could have a complete
residential community, with ranches, for all kinds of people and all walks of
life.
Mr. Alanskas: Which could happen.
Ms. Roberts: And that would be wonderful.
Mr. Alanskas: But we are discussing this property tonight. O.K.?
Ms. Roberts: O.K. But I am just bringing up the fact that there are other options. We don't
need to jump in and vote and say yes this is a wonderful idea. Because this
isn't enough time. Two weeks for residents to find out about it isn't enough
time. I kept calling the City to find out if things were on file or if there was
information for all of you to make good decisions. Nothing is on file. I am
sure you have had meetings. There has been private meetings with our Mayor
and a few of our residents. It is to be fair so if nothing else, table this for more
discussion until later. Thank you.
David Wood, 35929 Barkley, Livonia. I am a member of Ward Church and part of the session.
I just stand to speak tonight to support Mr. Baird's remarks and the decisions.
It is my hope that we could move for some renewal of that corner, I appreciate
what has been happening at Six Mile and Inkster and some of the commercial
there was not doing well and now it is renewed and I appreciate that very
°"'' much. I think this option would be good for the corner and thank you very
much for your consideration.
17319
N.. Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? Seeing no one, I will
close the Public Hearing and a motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: I have a couple of remarks before I make a motion. Prior to making these
remarks I would like to tell people that we cannot precondition zoning. If it is
zoned C-1, it can be a drug store. It can be any small business. That would be
up to the developer and at this stage of the game we know nothing about what
goes on but I will explain that in my remarks. I want to start by stating that we
were right when we opposed the super market at the corner of Six Mile and
Farmington. I think everybody here agrees with that because it really didn't fit.
We will once again be right by passing on to Council an approving resolution
in regards to this proposed development because, in my opinion, it is the best
fit we can get for that area. The allocation of 1.8 acres to commercial
development is reasonable and is compatible to the other three corners which
have commercial zoning. All are gas stations. Its resident component of 6.1
acres is comprehensive, in harmony with the surroundings, and will fill a gap
for this type of housing in our community. Needless to say, I for one am
looking forward to evaluating the forthcoming site plan and anticipate that it
will be well received by the Planning Commission, City Council and above all,
the adjacent neighbors. I am pleased to offer a change in zoning for this site to
C-1 and R-81I. Permitting R-8II zoning will allow more flexibility to deal with
this project without granting a license to build any arbitrary number of units in
this area. As you know, the final layout, open space requirements, total
number of units, building heights, material etc. will be derived after in depth
studies of the site plan by the Planning Commission, the neighbors and then the
final steps by the City Council.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-205-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
23, 1999 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-10-1-18 by Ward
Evangelical Presbyterian Church on behalf of Phoenix Land Development
requesting to rezone property located on the Southeast corner of the
intersection of Six Mile and Farmington Roads between Bloomfield Drive and
Six Mile Road from RIF to C-1 and R-8II, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-10-1-18 be approved
for a change of zoning to the C-1 and R-8II classifications for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning to the C-1 and R-8II classifications
is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land
uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning to the C-1 and R-8II classifications
will more readily provide for the redevelopment of the subject property;
17320
3) That the proposed change of zoning to the C-1 and R-8II classifications
will promote a comprehensive development plan for the subject
',gar property;
4) That the proposed change of zoning to the C-1 and R-8II classifications
represents a reasonable and logical zoning plan for the subject property
which adheres to the principles of sound land use planning;
5) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional
commercial services in the area; and
6) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a multiple family
type of living experience for those persons who desire an alternative to
the single family residence.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05of Zoning Ordinance 4543, as
amended.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: I would like to make a few remarks. Number one, I would like to clarify one
thing. One of the speakers brought up the point that they thought this whole
issue was held up because of the timing when it came before us and because of
an election. I think that is just outrageous for anybody to even think that. The
last case we heard was in September 15, 1998. That was sixty days sooner than
this case. It just so happens that is the way down the pipe and I don't think the
election had anything to do with when this case was going to be held before this
Planning Department. Number two, this is just one meeting of a lot of
operations are going to come through here. They have to go to the Council
now. You will have a chance there at a Public Hearing, then you will have the
site plan so there is a number of occasions where everybody will have an
opportunity to speak for or against this proposal. I would like to bring up
tonight, I took the time in the last week to read all the minutes from the last
meeting. In going through all those minutes, there were four areas where people
got up and had an opposition to the Farmer Jack, the C-2 zoning, 24 hour
operation, noise and traffic. This proposal tonight, in my opinion, we are going
from a C-2 to a C-1. We are only zoning 1.8 acres C-1, the balance of the 7.9
acres is a R-2, which is a residential type of zoning. Number two, one of the big
oppositions was the 24 hour operation. It is my understanding that Walgreens
does not open 24 hours a day so we eliminated 24 hours a day. So we
eliminated that objection that the neighbors had with the noise. One of the
oppositions was the noise that the trucks would come in during the night and
that there would be refrigerated trucks that would keep the neighbors awake at
night. That isn't going to happen. There will be trucks here but most of it will
be during the day, I would assume. I doubt very much it will be during the day,
I doubt very much it will be during the night and number two, it is farther away
from the residential area. Traffic. We have traffic problems in this City no
matter where you go, there are traffic problems in the City of Livonia. The
17321
administration and the Council have worked very hard to try and eliminate
them. We've got almost at every main intersection now, we've got flashing
lights where you can make your left hand turns, so we are trying to do
everything we can to eliminate that possibility. But we are talking about traffic
here. I don't think that this is going to cause anymore problems with traffic.
When we were talking about Farmer Jack we were talking about a big
concentration of cars going into Farmer Jack but here you've got homes.
Everybody is not going to leave their home at the same time just like you live in
a subdivision. I've got 248 homes in the subdivision I live in. Everybody
doesn't leave at the same time. If we all left at the same time, I agree, there
would be a big traffic congestion at the two entrances to our subdivision but that
isn't what happens. People leave at different times therefore I don't believe the
traffic problem you people anticipate is going to happen. I think we've got less
problems with traffic than we had with the church. The last thing I would like
to say is the fact that we are taking a piece of property that has been on the rolls
for many years that we've gotten any taxes. We now are going to generate some
tax dollars from here. Last, I want to defend Ward Presbyterian Church.
Everybody says they should this and they should do that. We all own pieces of
property. Anybody that sells anything tries to get the best possible dollar value
they can get for it. You shouldn't condemn Ward Presbyterian Church because
they are trying to get this property rezoned to a classification where they can get
the most dollars. I think everyone of us would do the same thing if we were
selling our home. We would get the top dollar. If somebody offered me
$500,000 for my house and I think it is only worth $250,000, I will take the
`► $500,000 and run so I don't think we should critize Ward Presbyterian Church.
Thank you.
Mr. Shane: I have no difficulty with the condominium units on this property. I think it is a
good use but I would hope however that the entire development would have
been condominiums as opposed to condominiums and commercial because the
only good reason I have heard for having commercial on the corner is economic
but the project probably isn't feasible without it. I would rather have Mr.
Schafer tell me that there is a need for those commercial uses in the area as
opposed to the economic. The only other concern I have and I think we can
deal with that at site plan approval time and that is the density and height of the
buildings. I think we can deal with that later and I am comfortable with the R-
8II zoning. While I am not comfortable with the C-1 I certainly wouldn't want a
denial to be a deterrent to the condominium project so I will vote yes on this
particular resolution. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #7 PETITION 99-8-6-3 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION (Political Signs)
..�. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-8-6-3 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to C.R. #498-99 and Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
17322
determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50D and Section 18.50K of the
�.. Livonia Zoning Ordinance pertaining to political signs and changes to the face
of any valid nonconforming sign.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: This is a petition by the City Council. Is there any correspondence Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: There is o correspondence regarding this particular item.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion from the Commissioners?
Mrs. Koons: I think we got into some pretty healthy discussion regarding this issue but there
is a lot more reading and discussing we need to do and I, as one Commissioner,
am not ready to act on this tonight.
Mr. Alanskas:Anybody else?
Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, we still need to hold a public hearing?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes we are going to hold a public hearing.
Mr. Hale: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale. and unanimously approved, it was
#11-206-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on November 23, 1999, on Petition 99-8-6-3 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to C.R. #498-99 and Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50D and Section 18.50K of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance pertaining to political signs and changes to the face
of any valid nonconforming sign, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 99-8-6-3 be tabled to January 4, 2000.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #8 PETITION 99-9-6-4 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION(Major Thoroughfare)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-6-4 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to C.R. #608-99 and Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended,to
17323
determine whether or not to amend Section 2.03 of the Livonia Zoning
Ordinance to provide a specific definition of"major thoroughfare".
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Taormina would you like to explain this to the audience?
Mr. Taormina: This particular amendment would revise the definition of major and master
thoroughfare within the context of zoning ordinance. There is reference in
several sections of the ordinance to master thoroughfare as well as major
thoroughfare, however, we do not provide a definition of major thoroughfare as
it relates to the width of the right-of-way which would be 120 feet in this
particular case. Because the ordinance does not make this distinction, there is
confusion relative to some of the requirements and standards that are in effect to
the ordinance. This amendment would clear up that confusion. Wherever there
is reference to a major thoroughfare it would be specific to any future or
existing right-of-way of 120 feet in width or greater and the standards would
thus apply under that definition.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to
the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition. Seeing no one, I will close the Public Hearing A motion is in
order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
r.. #11-207-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on November 23, 1999, on Petition 99-9-6-4 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to C.R. #608-99 and Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
determine whether or not to amend Section 2.03 of the Livonia Zoning
Ordinance to provide a specific definition of"major thoroughfare", the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-9-6-4
be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed amendment will provide a precise definition fort he
term "major thoroughfare" that is consistent with the standards
2) That the proposed amendment will eliminate confusion and ambiguity in
existing zoning Ordinance language that results from the lack of a
precise definition of the term "major thoroughfare".
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This concludes the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. We will
now proceed with the pending item portion of the agenda. These items have
been discussed at length in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from
the Commission.
ITEM #9 PETITION 99-10-8-25 REDFORD OAK PLAZA (Big Lots)
17324
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-8-25 by Redford
Oak Plaza, on behalf of the Big Lots, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.47 of the of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the commercial building
located at 30000 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Alanskas: This item has to be removed from the table.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was
#11-208-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 99-11-08-27 by Redford Oak Plaza, on behalf of the Big Lots,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior
building elevation of the commercial building located at 30000 Plymouth Road
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26 be taken from the table.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Is there anything new to report?
Mr. Taormina: There is no additional correspondence. As you will, recall the Planning
Commission at its last meeting tabled this item and requested further
modifications to the plans involving the renovation of a portion of this building
for occupancy by Big Lots. This is a structure that is currently occupied by
'4111111r
Media Play, or at least half of the building. Because of the short amount of time
between that meeting and tonight's meeting the applicant was unable to make
the suggested revisions and is requesting that this case be tabled for a period of
a least one month. In which case we would recommend that it be placed on the
January 18, 2000 Planning Commission Study agenda.
Mr. Alanskas: Just to let the audience know, and the TV audience, that this proposal is to go on
Plymouth Road next to Media Play and there is a portion of the building that is
vacant which the Big Lots is proposing to go into and like Mr. Taormina said,
they did not have their new site plan ready for us so we have to table this a
future date. Are there any questions from the Commissioners at this time?
Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-209-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 99-11-08-27 by Redford Oak P1a7a, on behalf of the Big Lots,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior
building elevation of the commercial building located at 30000 Plymouth Road
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section be tabled to January 18, 2000.
17325
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This concludes the pending item portion of the agenda. We will now proceed with
,,` the Miscellaneous Site Plans portion of the agenda.
ITEM #10 PETITION 99-11-8-27 RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-8-27 by Richard
Blumenstein requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an industrial
building on property located at 33875 Capitol Court in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 28.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Capitol between Stark and the cul-de-
sac. The subject site is the westerly half of a piece of property that was
recently split. Because this industrial property abuts residential, a site plan
must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council.
The petitioner is proposing to construct an 11,275 sq. ft. industrial building.
This building would have a small office in the front with a large warehouse in
the rear. Because this structure would have a deficient front yard setback
(required - 50 ft./proposed - 30 ft.), the petitioner first had to be granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to being presented to the
Planning Commission. A variance (case #9909-116) was granted at the
Board's September 28, 1999 Special Meeting. The site/landscape plan shows
parking spaces along the east side of the proposed building. These spaces
`ew extend out to the property line. The only wan to access these spaces would be
by a 22 feet wide drive easement, as shown on the plan. This easement is fully
on the adjacent property to the east, of which the petitioner has stated they also
own. In the event that this property is ever sold off, staff has asked the
petitioner to provide a "letter of easement" for the permanent use of this drive.
The landscape requirement for developments in an M-1 district specffies that at
least 1/2 of the established front yard shall be landscaped. The submitted plan
for this site shows that at least 52% of the front yard would be landscaped. The
rest of the landscaping on site would be by virtue of a 20 feet wide greenbelt
between the rear of the building and the south property line. The plan's
planting schedule defines this rear area as planted with grass. The Building
Elevation Plan shows that the front office build-out and the north elevation of
the warehouse would be constructed out of brick. A large (12 ft. x 14 ft.)
overhead door would be located on the east end of the warehouse's front wall.
The remaining three walls of the large warehouse would be constructed out of
concrete blocks. On November 15, 1999, the petitioner submitted a copy of an
Easement agreement for the use of the driveway easement.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from Stacey
and Sean Nalepka, 12068 Stark Road, dated November 21, 1999 which states:
"To Whom It May Concern: My wife and myself currently reside at 12068
Stark road, which directly borders the proposed light industrial building on
17326
Capitol Court to the west. We would like to voice our concerns with regard to
the proposed light industrial development on Capitol Court. Our concern is not
with the development itself, but rather the buffer zone between our residential
property and their industrial property. After reviewing the proposed site plan
with Scott Miller, of the City of Livonia Planning Department, it is our
understanding that the only barrier between the differently zoned properties is
the minimally required 5 foot brick wall. Our concern is that a 5 foot brick
wall does not adequately shield us from the activities at an industrial facility,
i.e.; truck well noises, parking and building lights, and general noises
associates with industrial processes. We would like to propose a few small
additions to the property barrier in order to better co-exist and lessen the
impact on our residential property. The proposed suggestions are as follows:
(1) We would like to see the wall height increased form the minimally
required 5 feet to 7 feet, to help alleviate some of the noise associated with
truck wells and parking lot traffic. (2) We also would like several trees
planted parallel to the wall. This addition to the plan would serve two
purposes: to help filter the light and noise produced by the property, while
softening the appearance of the brick structure. (3) Maintain a greenbelt area
between our property and the proposed parking lot to soften the transition
between the two differently zoned properties (4) Or any other ideas the City
would suggest to reduce the determents to our property in order to maintain the
aesthetic value of our community. We would like to thank the City for the
opportunity to voice our concerns, and would greatly appreciate any actions
that can be taken to ensure a positive co-existence between the proposed
industrial property and our home." The second item of correspondence is a
letter from the Division of Police, dated November 15, 1999, which reads as
follows: "The Police Department Traffic Bureau has reviewed the plans
submitted for the captioned petition. The Traffic Bureau has the following
recommendation: The setback of the loading dock overhead door is 50'from
the right-of-way. This setback equates to 57'- 58'from the road. The distance
is not sufficient and would create a problem for traffic traveling on Capitol
during off-loading of full sized tractor trailers. Often the cabs extend out onto
the road due to insufficient distances of the loading dock setbacks. I am
recommending a minimum setback increase distance of 15'." The letter is
signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. The second item is a
letter from the Engineering Division dated November 15, 1999, which reads as
follows" Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal at this time. We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The third
item of correspondence is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated
November 19, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
November 8, 1999, the site plan for the above subject Petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Parking area lighting is not depicted on
the plan. All lighting is required to be shielded to reflect away from the
residential property. (2) All parking spaces are required to be double striped.
__ (3) There was no wall section depicting materials used for construction. I trust
this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by David M.
Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. Thank you.
17327
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Richard Blumenstein, 32400 Telegraph Road, Suite 205. Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Mr. Alanskas: Would you tell us about your proposal?
Mr. Blumenstein: Our proposed building is approximately 11,000 sq. ft. building on a lot that
is approximately 5/8s of an acre in an industrial subdivision off of Stark Road.
The building that we are proposing to build is very similar to about 30 - 35
other buildings that we have built in the City of Livonia. The buildings
typically attract engineering and storage types of companies. We consider
them very attractive. I have pictures of examples of other buildings that we
have built that are similar to this one. Mr. Miller presented the elevation plan.
I guess my question to you is, I have done some side work in terms of taking a
look at some of the comments the Nalepkas directed at the Planning
Commission and I guess I would like to know if you would like for me to
address some of their concerns. My understanding of the requirement to
submit this type of plan to the City Council and Planning Commission is a
relative new one. Traditionally, site plan review was done within the Building
Department and this is a very small building. We are using the highest quality
materials. Would you like me to address the Nalepkas concerns?
Mr. Alanskas: Certainly.
Mr. Blumenstein: I have something I would like to hand out. We took some measurements in.
the field. I had an opportunity to discuss some of the concerns that were raised
with the staff members of the Planning Department. Our building sits 42 feet
from the property line. The ordinance requires a 5 to 7 foot wall and we have
proposed a 5 foot wall which is what I understand to be the same height as the
wall of the building that is directly south of us. The block, that is facing the
residential is a higher quality block. The aesthetics of that wall are going to be
better but there is no question that the Nalepkas live on a lot that adjoins an
industrial zoned piece of property. I do understand the concerns they have,
however, we have a very small lot. In fact we are not the owners of the lot.
We are the contingent purchasers of the lot pending the approval by the
appropriate City authorities of our proposed plan. I am sensitive to their
concerns but I feel alternatives that they are suggesting are not quite
reasonable. As you can see from the location of their house to the property line
wall is 121 feet. The total distance between our building and their home would
be in excess of approximately 163 feet. Certainly we need to address the
concerns Mr. Woodcox raised in terms of how we do our lighting and how we
do our lighting which are not in compliance with the ordinance but basically
what we are asking the Planning Commission to do is approve our petition to
build this industrial building which complies with all of the ordinance
requirements on a zoned piece of land which is in the industrial corridor of the
City of Livonia. We are between I-96 and Plymouth Road. This is where we
have done most of our industrial developments. The street is an industrial
street. Our uses, while we do not attract machine shops, it is a very light use
17328
and I don't really consider the use to be noxious and I could certainly
understand why anyone would prefer to have woods behind them instead of a
building but unfortunately the owner of the lot is not available tonight to speak.
We spoke over the telephone and he was not able to be here tonight. Basically
this lot is a very shallow lot. There has been a lot of challenges in terms of
developing it properly. It is kind of self serving of me to come here and tell
you that I think it is really great but I do think it is. If you have had a chance to
take a look at the pictures and if you take a look at the way the site plan lays
out, I think it is not an offensive use and I would like the Nalepkas to keep in
mind that this is industrially zoned property. We are not building a 40 foot tall
building. We are building a building which is going to be 23 to 24 feet tall.
Basically what we are planning on doing is a building that is 18 feet clear
under the joist and with the steel and the parapet, it is going to be a lower
building than anything that would be allowed under the ordinance and I
probably would feel differently if we were doing a 50,000 or 100,000 sq. ft.
building, I would gladly concede the extra land to provide the buffer but I
guess they live next to this building. If we had 22 feet we could have come to
the property line. We made sure we didn't do that and I think in the planning
process prior to submission we have addressed a lot of concerns. Before I go
any further, I would like to turn it back over to you Mr. Chairman and ask you
if you have any questions or if there are any questions from the members of the
Commission.
Mr. Alanskas: Yes we do.
Mrs. Koons: Before the neighbors voices their concerns, I also shared the same concern. I
don't know why with only one side of your property having a residential
neighbor, you need to have all the parking right up next to your fence. I also
don't understand tonight, why you would disagree with changing the fence
from a 5 to a 7 foot wall.
Mr. Blumenstein: That I do not disagree with. If the Planning Commission desires a 7 foot
wall, then we will gladly install a 7 foot wall instead of the 5 foot wall.
Mrs. Koons: What are you objecting to?
Mr. Blumenstein: I am not sure what is being asked of me but we are glad to raise the height
of the wall if it would dissuade the concerns of our neighbors.
Mrs. Koons: That is not how I heard you talking just now.
Mr. Blumenstein: The Nalepkas had several other points, one of which was a buffer and one
was having the buffer filled with a bunch of trees and basically when we met
with the Nalepkas they attended the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Actually at the beginning of the meeting we spoke with them and they
pronounced themselves satisfied and went home. I offered to them at the time
�.. that if the appearance of that wall on the back of their property was offensive to
them that we would be willing to put some type of hedges there or some other
types of landscaping in order to screen the wall from their view. But basically
17329
being that our lot is only 5/8s of an acre, we have a limited choices in terms of
how we can lay a building out on that lot.
Mrs. Koons: Now I understand what you are objecting to. You are objecting to the thought
that you might have to move your building?
Mr. Blumenstein: There is no other place I can move it.
Mrs. Koons: But I just didn't understand. You sounded like you were objecting. In my
mind, asking for some kind of greenery to soften that wall is not out of line and
it is something I would be supportive of I also wonder about all 29 parking
spaces when you are required to have 10.
Mr. Blumenstein: One of the reasons that the buildings we have built in this community have
• been successful is that we build buildings which are very flexible and therefore
when we are building a building and the ultimate user of that building or over
the life time of these buildings the users of the buildings are not known it is
very difficult to anticipate what their needs will be and while we could guess
that there are 10, the reason that we provided 29 parking spaces was that there
are times, for example, at the side of a building , let's say over here that
somebody needed a side door, we might lose a parking space. There are times
when you might have a sales office and people might have their meetings once
a week, or once a month and will require the parking spaces and since it is so
difficult to anticipate what the need will be or if it were for one user, it would
be much simpler to discern what their needs and then meet those needs
precisely.
Mrs. Koons: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would you, Mark, review that setback for the truck well? What was the
difference between acceptable and not acceptable?
Mr. Taormina: There was a variance granted for the placement of this building which allowed
it to be moved from the normal required setback of 50 feet to 30 feet. You can
see where that offset is in the bottom right hand corner of the building. That is
the truck well. The distance between the truck well and the curb, which is
where Scott is pointing to now, is less than the distance required for a
tractor/trailer to park without interfering with the traffic on the street. That was
the concern that was raised by the Traffic Bureau.
Mr. Piercecchi: If they got a variance for it....
Mr. Miller: What the police officer is saying is that because if you are going to park a
truck here to load, he is going to be sticking out here into the street.
Mr. Piercecchi: How deficient is that?
Mr. Miller: What he suggests is 15 more feet. We're saying just notch the building 15
more feet. He doesn't have to move the building he just has to notch this back.
17330
Mr. Piercecchi: Is that a problem?
Mr. Blumenstein: Actually this is not a truck well. It is a front door and typically the users of
these buildings, at least in the buildings we have, the typical use for that door is
something like a step van. I think what the police officer was referring to was
a tractor/trailer and I 'm not sure what the length of a tractor/trailer is.
Mr. Alanskas: A tractor/trailer is 48 feet plus the length of the truck so you are talking close
to 60 feet. You would not know who was delivering your merchandise so it
could be a step in or it could be a tractor/trailer.
Mr. Blumenstein: That is a true statement. Basically our engineers have charts in terms of
trying to determine what the exact size is. The officer looked like he was
estimating how many feet he would want and basically we could certainly
move that door back somewhat but as you can see, the building is on an angle.
Mr. Alanskas: It is not on an angle on that side of the building where the truck well is. It is on
the other side so the angle would have nothing to do with it.
Mr. Blumenstein: Basically the 15 feet would double what the size of the office space is. If
you draw a line 15 feet back from the office where he is proposing to notch it,
we usually use those side windows. That is where the office area is. I would
like to introduce my father, Harold, who is going to help me out.
Harold Blumenstein, Paragon Properties, 32400 Telegraph Road, Suite 202, Bingham Farms. I
would like to step back from the site plan for a minute because some of the
issues we are talking about really relate to philosophy and not to building site
plans. In the early 1960s when Livonia, unlike most other communities which
spot zones industrial land, in areas but still within the confines of other uses,
Livonia had the presence of mind to create an industrial corridor, which ran
frankly in those days and still does from its east border to its west border
running from the 1-96 freeway over to Plymouth Road. That whole area is all
industrial and it's got in it buildings like this and it has in it buildings that are
many acres underground and go as high as 40 or 50 feet. I think this building
has to be looked at in the context of not a spot zoned piece of property that is in
a primarily residential area, however, but what we have here on Stark Road but
we have done a lot of building on Stark Road. Stark Road is really an
industrial street so that this area is really a place where there are very few
residences within a very large industrial area. It is one mile wide and many
miles long. To address the parking, particularly in the 1960s, the ordinance
was and it went through until very recently, the ordinance was a minimum of
one parking space for every 550 feet or one parking space for employee, which
ever was greater. That was the old ordinance. Typically if you took a look at
all of the buildings that we have built, we vary from 1 for 350 sq. ft. to 1 one
for 450 sq. ft. for one parking space. The reason we do that is because these
buildings are there a long time. We maintain them. You sign three to five year
leases with people who use them and there is no way to know what you will
need but we do know in the market place the right amount of parking is
17331
between 1 for 350 and 1 for 450 sq. ft. and that is basically what works. In
terms of the question that related to the truck door, I think certainly we would
'New agree to be able to make an adjustment to this building that would result from a
meeting that we could have with this officer. This letter came in very late. We
looked at the situation. Ricky is right about what he says about the fact that
these small building users typically do not use semis. They typically are
engineering type companies. They are not manufacturing. They are not
processing merchandise typically. They are usually prototype companies.
They are engineering type development companies and people who do the kind
of work that didn't exist 30 years when all these buildings were tool shops. I
don't know if 15 feet is the right number but I am certain we would be willing
to agree that we would agree with the Police Department on what the correct
number should be and make the adjustment. Once we presented our
engineering information and saw what basis the officer had for making his
judgment, we have no difficulty with that.
Mr. Alanskas: The way we came up with 15 feet was let's say if a trailer is 48 feet and you've
got a 12 foot length for the tractor, you are talking 60 feet so you would be 15
feet deficient without sticking out into the street.
Mr. H. Blumenstein: I thought what the letter said is that what we currently have is 58 feet.
We are 58 feet from the road right now so basically if you've got a 60 foot
trailer you would have to move it back 2 feet in order to meet 60 feet.
Mr. Alanskas: But they are saying to be really safe, they are recommending 15 feet.
Mr. H. Blumenstein: Right, and I am not quarreling with that, I am simply saying that we
have engineering information that we can present to the Police Department and
if when they are all through, they say that they want 15 feet, we will give them
15 feet but what I am saying, in my experience, it is not required that that you
have 73 feet to put a 60 foot trailer if you were going to use that kind of trailer
and that is basically my experience. I think the way to approach the problem is
to meet with the officer.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand that. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: Would you be willing to eliminate three to four parking spaces. If you did, you
would still be within your 1 space for each 450 sq. ft.? The purpose of
eliminating those parking spaces would be perhaps to place some additional
trees along that property line as the neighbors requested.
Mr. Blumenstein: Where are you suggesting we place the trees?
Mr. Shane: Along the west side of the property.
Mr. Blumenstein: If we did that, that would only benefit them by 30 or 40 feet in terms of that.
17332
Mr. Shane: I know, but it is better than what I see here now. The only solution I see,
unless you cut the building down, I don't see where else you are going to put
landscaping there. In an effort to do something, maybe you would be willing
to eliminate more than that but that keeps you within that 1 to 450 sq. ft. ratio
you were talking about. At the very corner there, that is not a parking space so
that wouldn't be counted in there so say you could eliminate four more. You
could locate some trees along there in some reasonable fashion. It would help
soften the building a little bit.
Mr. Blumenstein: I was not given a copy of their correspondence. The last item I checked, I
thought they were not unhappy with the development. I guess, the question is;
if we are going to plant trees would it be appropriate to consider planting them
on their side of the wall which would further soften the effect of the wall and
the building? I am only saying that because there is a corner lot, of course that
has a double set back and I am not sure exactly how that is going to be
developed. If they have concerns that we can address by planting trees. I have
no objection to planting trees but if we are going to spend the money to plant
trees then I am wondering if there is something that would be satisfactory in
terms of spreading them out a little bit more, if that is their concern.
Mr. Shane: I have no problem with that as long as you can work it out with them.
Mr. Taormina: If I could just point out some of the site characteristics that may help you
evaluate this. The property line along the west side actually abuts two lots. If
�.. you look in your staff packet, there is a diagram which shows the relationship
of this property to the adjoining properties. You will see lots 117 and 118 with
frontage along Stark Road. I believe the residents that have expressed a
concern in their correspondence, live on the parcel identified as Lot 118. Lot
117, which is right at the corner of Stark and Capitol is presently vacant. I do
not believe that they own that property. The condition along the back of Lot
118 on the residential side of the property is pretty well landscaped. There are
about 8 pine trees that are about 8" to 12" in diameter and the trees are about
30 to 40 feet in height. They are not right up against where the wall would be
installed in this case. The trees are set back about 10 to 15 feet due to a utility
easement. There are some overhead wires there. They have trimmed those
trees, but generally speaking, they provide a sufficient screen at least at a
height above where the wall would be constructed. Unlike Lot 118, the area at
the rear of Lot 117 abutting this property is not well landscaped. I think the
suggestions made by Mr. Shane relative to the removal of those parking spaces
and possibly adding some landscaping along there, address the problem.
Mrs. Koons: I understand both of you saying it is zoned industrial, it is not spot zoning but
you also have to understand that people live next door to it and I really think
there needs to be a taller wall, which you have agreed to and some more
landscaping that upon planting, is taller than the wall.
Mr. Blumenstein: That can be done. If the wall is 7 feet and depending upon the elevation of
the land next to the wall, that could easily be done with the right plantings and
the right elevation. In fact, it is possible, although we have not done the site
17333
engineering at this time, that we might have some dirt available that we might
we able to berm on the residential side and put the trees on top of them and
create what would probably be a nice buffer.
Mr. Taormina: There is a utility easement that affects Lot 118. I cannot recall whether or not
the utility lines extend across the rear of Lot 117. That would be a factor that
we would have to look into to make sure that there is no conflict there.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is it essential that you get this thing through this body tonight? It seems like
there are a couple of things up in the air. You are willing to put trees on the
opposite side of the wall which would benefit the neighbors. You say that you
wish to speak to the police officer about what the set back should be for
permitting big semis if they did come into that area and to service one of your
customers and a couple of other things. If it is not essential to you, I wish you
would request that we table this and you can resolve these things and go talk to
those neighbors and talk to the police officer and some of those other things
that were mentioned in those letters that Mr. Taormina read.
Mr. Blumenstein: I would like to address that. You sense that there is a time issue and the
time issue is that when we purchased the land and determined that we needed
certain approvals, the seller agreed to give us an amount of time, a six month
amount of time, which I think we are fairly well into, to submit plans and get
the approval of the City Planning Commission and City Council. The only
difficulty would be is if we did not meet that time frame. Because the seller is
not here, I cannot ask him if he would extend it. The worst thing that would
`'m. happen is the development would not go forward but I think based on the
layout of the land, I think this is a good alternative for it. If you'll give me just
one second....
Mr. H. Blumenstein: With regard to the plantings on the residential side and the resolution
with the police officer, we are willing to stipulate that we will agree with the
police officer on what modifications are made to the plans.
Mr. Alanskas: We are not done yet. There may be other issues. Tabling is always in order.
Tabling is not a long period of time, if we do this.
Mr. H. Blumenstein: But basically if those are the two issues, I am simply saying if there are
other issues, but if those are the only two issues
Mr. Alanskas: There are only two at the present time.
Mr. H. Blumenstein: There may be more.
Mr. Piercecchi: How much time is left on that six months?
Mr. Blumenstein: I did not bring the purchase documents with me.
17334
Mr. H. Blumenstein: I can tell you approximately that we would have to be through the
Council sometime in January on the second meeting in order to be able to get
done.
Nam.
Mr. Piercecchi: So you started this thing four months ago?
Mr. Blumenstein: To give you an indication, Mark or Scott indicated to me that the nature of
the controversy earlier and the lateness of the meeting we had our second child
on Friday and I
Mr. Alanskas: That is why I thought you wouldn't here this evening.
Mr. Blumenstein: I would love to have called and asked to be removed from the agenda. Can
we see if there are any other issues?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes, we will.
Mr. LaPine: One of the questions came up about the five foot wall that is out there now.
Did you mention that?
Mr. Blumenstein: There is an industrial building immediately to the south and they have a five
foot wall. I think it is indicated on this handout that I gave you.
Mr. LaPine: Which lot would that be? I have a problem with that. I don't want to see a five
foot wall and then a seven foot wall.
Nam-
Mr. H. Blumenstein: There is a big industrial building here. This wall that continues across
here is a five foot wall.
Mr. LaPine: So we are going to have a five foot wall and then a seven foot wall?
Mr. H. Blumenstein: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Which I don't particularly like. So what you are telling me is that we have a
five foot wall starting here and then a five foot wall then we are going to pick
up a seven wall and then we pick up another five foot wall?
Mr. H. Blumenstein: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: The total acres of this whole parcel is 1.42 and you are only buying the B3
parcel or did you buy the whole parcel?
Mr. Blumenstein: We are purchasing the entire parcel. One of the requirements of the Zoning
Board of Appeals was that the property be split immediately upon, or as soon
as possible after their approval of our petition and we submitted for a lot split
and we were approved for the lot split. The ordinance requires that we submit
the parcel adjoining the residential but because the lot had already been split
r.. and it wasn't applicable to the part that had been split off from there.
17335
Mr. LaPine: I guess my question is if you bought the whole parcel and if you own the whole
parcel, why can't we move the building away from the residential more and put
a landscaping berm and the wall?
N...
Mr. H. Blumenstein: There is a second building to be built on the other space.
Mr. LaPine: Oh, you are building two buildings.
Mr. H. Blumenstein: I would say this, on the west property line there is a 20 foot requirement
in the ordinance. The reason that parking went on that side is to make the
building further away from the residences. We could very easily move the
building 20 feet to the west and put the parking on the east side if you consider
the parking to be noxious.
Mr. Alanskas: You are showing parking on the east side now.
Mr. H. Blumenstein: Parking could be on the east. There are two rows of parking between the
two buildings.
Mr. LaPine: Mark, remember we discussed the possibility of putting angle parking in on the
west side and we could cut down the number of parking spaces there and then
where it shows the greenbelt here, they could drive around the building. Is that
still viable?
Mr. Taormina: That was one of the alternative solutions that we looked at early on to try to
�.. address this concern about adding some landscaping along the residential side
of the property. I did discuss that issue with Mr. Blumenstein and I think
maybe he would like to address that because it does impact the site plan in its
relationship to the property to the south and the desire, in this case, to provide a
greenbelt there. We thought that was a possible solution without altering the
size or location of the building. But apparently, there are some other issues
that I will let him address.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Could you address them?
Mr. Blumenstein: Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals specifically requested that our rear yard
be landscaped. In order to go to angle parking, we would have to pave the rear
yard. Our south neighbor also has a day care center for his employees and has
indicated some concern that we not encroach any further to the south and we
respected that and to an extent, very often we will pave behind a building just
for maintenance and sometimes utilities like to get back there. In this case,
because of the concerns of our neighbor and also because of the concerns of
the Zoning Board of Appeals, we did not do that.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Are there any further questions from the Commissioners? Hearing
none, I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition?
17336
John Pastor, 31140 Lyndon, Livonia. Actually I haven't seen this plan so it's really hard for
me, we didn't see it on your monitor.
Now Mr. Alanskas: You could not see the plan on the monitor?
Mr. Pastor: They didn't have it on there long enough. It is kind of hard for me to address
any questions at this time. I had talked to the petitioner. We are interested in
keeping the landscaping behind the building and that the neighbors concerns
are addressed. I have a hard time speaking on this because of my position in
the City and there being a conflict.
Mr. Alanskas: But you are still a neighbor behind the property?
Mr. Pastor: I think a good way of possibly solving a lot of issues, especially with the
neighbors, is once you put up the wall, the hidden landscaping on the neighbors
side. If they agree to that, then that addresses the concerns for their screening.
Especially if the wall is at five feet which would match the height of our wall.
Our wall is a brick masonry wall. If they bring that down, continue that down
so it's in the same uniformness and then you put your landscaping on theirs. If
the neighbors would agree to that, because me being a neighbor I would rather
have it on my side instead of on theirs because I can maintain it properly. I
think that might solve a lot of problems at this point.
Mr. Alanskas: Would you explain that day care center that you have? Is it there now?
Mr. Pastor: Yes and no. We are in the process of getting certified. We have a play land.
We have right now we consider it more of a babysitting service. We have five
children right there. We have an interior plan that is going through
remodeling. We are going to get certified through the state.
Mr. Alanskas: But you don't have an outside play area?
Mr. Pastor: Yes we do. There is a 20 foot strip all the way down the side of the building
and then when you go in the front, on the northeast corner of the building there
is a big area there also.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there play equipment there?
Mr. Pastor: Yes there is.
Mr. Alanskas: I must be blind. That gravel road there, is that your own private road?
Mr. Pastor: No it is not. The property that they own as well as what we own, was owned
by one owner. We bought the industrial side and they bought the vacant
property side. So the owner, which was LTEI, used to use that as another way
of getting their trucks through Capitol, go behind their building then go right
out Beacon. That is not an easement and we don't use it. The only other
concerns that I was asking about, I really haven't addressed it because I haven't
17337
seen the plan and I will hopefully be able to address it with them and work it
out with them.
Mr. LaPine: Are you saying that the wall should be five feet and that on the other side they
can put a berm there and then put trees on top of the berm that would probably
go above the five feet.
Mr. Pastor: Not necessarily the berm on their side. Actually what I was saying was put the
five foot wall, put the landscaping on the residents side. If the residents want a
berm there or something like that then that makes everybody happy to a
degree.
Mr. LaPine: I just don't like the idea of a five foot wall and a seven foot wall.
Mr. Pastor: I agree. If you have seen where ours are, we actually trimmed our trees to an
almost five foot height with those pine trees. We have pine trees that have to
be 30 to 40 feet tall. What we did that for was so our kids have more room to
play in there for more play space. That wall does a good job of covering that
up because you can't even tell that those trees were trimmed.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you for coming in.
Mr. Hale: Could I ask one more question of the petitioners. Are you able to obtain an
extension. Can you request that from the party you are dealing with, the six
month period of time? That is generally not something that is written in stone
�.. in these deals. I know because I have worked on a few of them myself. I am
wondering if tabling is really going to screw you up here.
Mr. Blumenstein: Clearly that was our concern. I would like to ask and certainly we would
seek an extension, although we wouldn't know now and that is why I wish Mr.
Walthow was here because I could have an answer for you right a way.
Mr. Alanskas: On that same point, when did you come before the Commission for this
petition?
Mr. Blumenstein: The Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Alanskas: No, to us.
Mr. Blumenstein: This petition?
Mr. Alanskas: When was it filed?
Mr. Taormina: October 29.
Mr. Alanskas: Actually that is almost a month. You knew you had six months but you came
to us five months later.
17338
Mr. Blumenstein: No. I can get you exact time frame. We got our plans drawn up and
submitted them as quickly as we possibly could. We also had a ZBA in there.
New
Mr. Alanskas: Which was when?
Mr. Blumenstein: I believe it was in September.
Mr. Alanskas: So two months. So four months have gone by in the meantime besides that.
Mr. Blumenstein: I think one of the difficulties obviously is that the process is out of our
control so it is hard to time it exactly.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand that.
Mr. Blumenstein: Mr. Chairman, as I hear the concerns expressed being to make sure that we
are able to buffer the effect of this building on the adjoining residential
property, and the suggestions being that we would construct a berm on the
residents property...
Mr. Alanskas: Not a berm but trees.
Mr. Blumenstein: And install trees on top of that berm.
Mr. LaPine: Or just the trees....
Mr. Alanskas: Just so they have proper screening.
Mr. Blumenstein: And that the height of those trees would be higher than the height of the
wall.
Mr. LaPine: Or at least as tall as the wall.
Mr. Alanskas: And the set back for the truck.
Mr. Shane: Would you be inconvenienced by one week?
Mr. Blumenstein: I don't believe so.
Mr. Shane: I would suggest if we table this to the next study meeting which is next week
and also hold a special regular meeting and act on it that same night if his plans
are in order. I would like to see his landscape plan and these other issues
resolved on paper and that is the reason I would like to table it. I think we
could do that rather quickly.
Mr. Blumenstein: If that would make the Commissioners feel more comfortable then we
would proceed to attempt to resolve those issues as timely as possible and
would appreciate any expedition we could get by the Commission after we
resubmit them.
17339
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against this petition? I believe
`r• I see our Council President walking up here and I know what he is going to say
but let's let him say his thing. This is a time factor.
Jack Engebretson, 18871 Comstock, Livonia. The reason I am coming forward is to tell you
that in order to show a spirit of cooperation with the Planning Commission and
with the petitioner and the neighbors involved, that I would be willing to
suggest that it would be acceptable for you to waive the seven day rule if you
did what Mr. Shane suggested and held a Special Regular with your study
meeting, that would leave them in exactly the same position that they would be
in, if you dealt with it tonight and let the seven days pass. It really wouldn't
affect the timing at all and it might give everyone a little more comfort that
the process can be carried out in an orderly fashion without any penalty.
Mr. Alanskas: That is a good suggestion.
Mr. Hale: To the extent that you are able to obtain the extension though, I would prefer
that we not try to push it through and rush it next week. Study sessions are for
a particular purpose, in my mind, so if you can get the extension, great. That is
what I am thinking anyway. Thank you.
Mr. Blumenstein: I will contact the seller tomorrow and attempt to reach him and obtain the
extension. In the meantime I will also proceed to address the issues that have
been raised.
Mr. LaPine: Just one other question. You've got to contact the homeowner to make sure
they are comfortable with this so that when we pass this, apparently the
homeowner isn't here so we don't know what his feelings are.
Mrs. Koons: Because when we table we have no discussion, I just want to let you know that,
for me, who requested the seven foot wall with what is new information to me,
that what we are looking at is a five foot wall adjacent, I would be happy with
a five foot wall with landscaping on the other side that is taller than the five
foot wall.
Mr. Blumenstein: So you would like to see a detail submitted that would show the location
and height of the wall and the landscaping and elevation perhaps to show what
the landscaping would look like when it is installed?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Blumenstein: Then we will have one of those drawn up.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. With that a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-210-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 99-11-8-27 by Richard Blumenstein requesting approval of all plans
17340
required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an industrial building on property located at 33875
N.. Capitol Court in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 be tabled to December 14,
1999.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #11 PETITION 99-11-SN-11 Universal Sign Fabricators (National City Bank)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-SN-11 by
Universal Sign Fabricators, on behalf of National City Bank, requesting
approval for signage for the office building located at 39209 Six Mile Road in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Miller: The site is located on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads.
The applicant is requesting approval for a ground sign for the National City
Bank building located at the intersection of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads. This
sign would be internally illuminated. Because the proposed sign is in excess of
sign area and because it identifies a tenant, the applicant first had to be granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to be presented to the
Planning Commission. A variance (case #9910-131) was granted at the Board's
October 19, 1999 Special Meeting.
Now
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:There is one item of correspondence which is a letter from the Inspection
Department, dated November 18, 1999, that reads as follows: "Per your request
of November 12, 1999, the sign package for the above site has been reviewed.
The Petitioner was before the zoning Board of Appeals (Appeal Case #9910-
131) and received a variance for the sign in question. Providing the sign is
constructed as proposed, the Inspection Department would have no objection to
the referenced sign. I trust this has provided the requested information." The
letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mike Angelo, Universal Sign Fabricators, 24800 Warner. Warren, Michigan 48091.
Mr. Alanskas: Tell us what you would like to propose.
Mr. Angelo: We would like to propose a monument sign that shows the bank being at that
location. It formerly was a bank. Prior to National City it was First of America.
Prior to that, it was a Citizen's Bank, I believe. No, Security Bank and there
was a ground sign there that was removed. From looking at some drawings of
the Blaine Building, there was a First of America sign that was placed on the
stew windows of the building itself. Those windows are custom made windows that
are only made twice a year, I believe, and they are imported. When they
17341
fabricate the windows they fabricate the holes that the remote channel letters
would have been attached to. It is my understanding that National City Bank
bought out First of America, were removed from the site. The owner did not
wish at that point to have letters put back on the building. He had intentions of
having his own name put on the building. He brought that before the Zoning
Board and it was rejected. The consequence of that is that we are at a stale
mate of the bank not having identification for over a year on the building and
the owner of the building not having his name either. If you go to the site or if
you have been to that location, on the four corners there are two gas stations, a
strip mall that is identified and a larger mall. On this corner all you see is a
large jeweled green building that has no identification on it. It is also my
understanding that the bank up to this point of being a year in excess without
naming any identification, the ratio of the loans that they have been able to write
with new business has been in excess of more than one half million dollars lost
loans that directly affect the community. We have proposed a sign that would
basically be put back in the same location as the prior bank, First of America,
and although it is in excess of what a tenant sign would be, it is my
understanding that reading what the ordinance is, a tenant sign cannot be any
further than 20 feet from the area of the building itself, which it is in excess of
the distance between it. The business center sign would not identify the
business itself as being the Blaine Group although the Blaine Group does not
have any intentions of having that sign. If it was a business center sign it
would be allowed to have up to 30 sq. ft. I tried to design a sign that would
have 29.33 sq. ft. It would be in compliance with the set back which is
`.. currently 10 feet back from each right-of-way which it would be. Basically I
am trying to put it back in the same location at once it was before and it gives
adequate identification to the bank. There are no other identifications of this
building anywhere on any side of the building itself of what is there. If you are
a current banker at that location, you are probably aware it is there. If you are
someone coming off of 1-96 that wants to use an ATM machine, you probably
are going to wind up at Comerica because their competitor does in deed have a
sign on Haggerty.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Hale: At one point in time there was a sign on the outside of that building, was there
not?
Mr. Angelo: Yes there was.
Mr. Hale: What did the sign say?
Mr. Angelo: I believe it was the bank. I am just going by the actual historical drawing that I
have from the Blaine Group. It was Security Bank.
Mr. Hale: So what is the history on this? The ZBA has denied any sort of signage on the
glass?
17342
Mr. Angelo: We applied for a variance to have a sign at that location and it was originally
tabled because the owner of the building wanted to have his name on the
building to say the "Blaine Group" The Zoning Board wanted to see what the
bank had in mind to put there so they would have an idea what both parties were
going to do. When that was decided and we provided what we planned on
doing, it was rejected from the owner's standpoint but it was accepted for the
bank having representation.
Mr. Hale: Are there plans to put additional signage by the drive-through in the window?
There is a sign there now. It looks like a make shift sign.
Mr. Angelo: It is just a make shift sign that I believe says "drive-in banking".
Mr. Hale: So that is difficult to identify from the street.
Mr. Angelo: And you can only identify it from one side, sir.
Mr. Hale: So that is difficult to identify from the street. Can you live with a smaller
amount of square footage than 29 sq. ft.? Can you live with 10 or 15 sq. ft. for
a sign of this nature instead of 29 sq. ft.?
Mr. Angelo: I took advantage of what was available for the business center sign.
Mr. Hale: If you could scale it down, it is still going to give you the effect, right? You can
have signage on the outside.
Mr. Angelo: Not really because if you have been to that site, where the former sign was, the
whole section we are planning on putting on it, actually dips down and draws
back. The distance between Haggerty and where the sign is, is a considerable
distance. If you put in perspective of where the gas station sign is, from both
sides, the AMOCO and Mobil gas station, the large sign for the larger mall
across the street and also the sign going into the entrance way going into the
small strip mall, if we made it 10 foot square, it would be dwarfed by everything
else around it plus the crabapple trees that are more than eight or ten feet tall
that would also block it out so you wouldn't see it at all.
Mr. Hale: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Piercecchi: One of the problems that we have is that the maximum sign that the ordinance
allows for this type of installation is 10 sq. ft. You are asking for a monument
sign when you are in a complex and not entitled to one. We appreciate the
second renderings here which are brick, which we prefer than any other type of
material but you are asking us to give you a monument sign when you are not
entitled to it. Monument signs are 30 sq. ft., you are allowed 10 sq. ft.
Mr. Angelo: As a tenant sign, but the owner was making certain that no other person in that
building, although they may be tenants, are allowed signage or any
` advertisement. So the only people that were granted signage or advertisement
for that building was the bank itself. That was written into the lease. Prior to
17343
that their name was on the building but during this length of time during the
year's duration that they have not had identification on the bank, their square
r.. footage in the building has dwindled from 13,500 sq. ft. of occupation down to
3,500 sq. ft. Generally, banks are just like any other business. They are judged
on their performance and if you can afford to be where you are. If you are
losing business you are going to dwindle. The eventual outcome, not to sound
doom and gloom, would be the nonexistence of the bank. The bank is in
competition with Comerica that is down the street that has a pylon sign that is
going to tower above what the National City has.
Mr. Piercecchi: I hate to say this, but perhaps you are in the wrong location. There was a nice
Comerica on Farmington and Six Mile Road that terminated. I share Mike's
opinion, that asking for a monument sign is pushing it just a little bit too far.
Mr. LaPine: When Security Bank was in that building, how much space did they have?
How much square footage compared to what you have there?
Mr. Angelo: That I do not know.
Audience member - It is the same amount of space.
Mr. LaPine: How large of a sign did Security Bank have?
Mr. Angelo: That I also do not know.
r..
Mr. LaPine: I can understand your problem but I have a problem too. It seems that every
time now all we hear about is more and more cases we get before us, nobody
wants to live within the ordinance. Everybody want a bigger and bigger sign
and the Zoning Board of Appeals keeps approving larger signs, we get them. I
have come to the conclusion, as my good friend Mr. John Pastor out there,
we've got an ordinance. If we can't live within the ordinance that we say that
the signage should be, then we should change the ordinance. Maybe we
shouldn't even have an ordinance. We'll take every case on an individual basis
and we'll say we like your sign we'll give you 60 sq. ft. to this guy but if we
have an ordinance that says so many square foot on this building, you are
allowed so much square footage on your sign that is what we should adhere to.
We should quit doing this changing signs. If everybody abides by the
ordinance, then nobody has any gripes. Everybody is getting the same deal and
I have just reached a point where I am tired of passing these signs. They seem
to be getting bigger and bigger instead of smaller and smaller. That is where I
am coming from. I understand you need a sign. I am willing to give you what
the ordinance allows and that is it.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a couple of comments. Wouldn't you agree that this sign is an
identification sign to identify the bank there to identify the bank there?
Mr. Angelo: Absolutely.
17344
Mr. Alanskas: And you said if you had a 10 sq. ft. that you would have a problem with some
trees there blocking the visual.
Mr. Angelo: Correct and also that the property slopes back.
Mr. Alanskas: But you know 10 sq. ft. is 2 ft. by 5 ft. high and you could always trim a tree so
that sign is visible. It was visible before at 10 sq. ft. and there is no reason why
it wouldn't be visible now.
Mr. Angelo: Was that the previous size of the sign?
Mr. Alanskas: That I don't know but what I am saying is that what is allowable, 10 sq. ft., if
• you pass Plymouth Road and start going east to Redford you'll all of these
buildings with signs, a small building and a sign plastered all the way across and
Livonia does not want this. That is why we have an ordinance and in my
opinion 10 sq. ft. is plenty for you. Are there any more questions from the
Commissioners? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-211-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
99-11-SN-11 by Universal Sign Fabricators, on behalf of National City Bank,
requesting approval for signage for the office building located at 29309 Six
Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Universal Sign Fabricators dated
September 16, 1999 and revised November 18, 1999, together with the
Plot Plan dated June 18, 1999 is hereby approved with a brick base as
shown, provided that the area of the sign shall not exceed 10 sq. ft.;
2) That this sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after
midnight;
3) That the conditions specified in the Zoning Board of Appeals case
#9910-131 shall be met;
4) That any additional signage for this site shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
17345
'tow
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 796th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on November 23, 1999 was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Michael Hale, Secretary
ATTEST:
Robert Alans as, Acting Chairman
/rw