HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-02-13 14693
MINUTES OF THE 719TH REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
r.. HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 13, 1996 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
719th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with approximately
300 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson William LaPine Robert Alanskas
James C. McCann** R. Lee Morrow* Daniel Piercecchi
Patricia Blomberg
Mr. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director, Mr. H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and
Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will
`�.. hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use
request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to
the City Council, otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only
public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission
resolutions do not become effective until seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The
Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the
staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them
depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
* Mr. Morrow entered the meeting at this time.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-11-1-26, as
amended, by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side of
Six Mile Road between Stamwich Blvd. and Merriman Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 11 from RUFC to R-3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: From our Engineering Department we have a letter dated January 16 indicating
that they have no objections to this proposal from an engineering standpoint.
Some on site-detention of storm water run-off may be required due to the
downstream capacity of existing natural water course. We trust this will provide
14694
you with the information requested. Signed by Gary Clark.
We have one letter in support of this petition from David Jakubiec, 17448
Rexwood stating "We have received notification of a new residential development
planned for the north side of Six Mile Road between Merriman and Middlebelt
Roads just east of Holy Cross Lutheran Church. We will be attending the public
meeting about this development, but wish to express our support for the project
with the following comments: we would like to see that the trees are left in place
except for those that have to be removed for roads and utilities. The people
buying the lot, would have the chance, to remove what they do not want. While it
would add to the cost of building a house, so would the cost to landscape with
mature trees. I do believe that people would be interested in this area after seeing
the desert like sub-division of Canton and Novi and other areas."
In addition to this, we have an objection petition with 87 signatures from various
residents and a packet of objecting letters too numerous to read.
Mr. Engebretson: I also have 8 letters in opposition to the petition. I would like to read this brief
letter from Harry and Brenda Ganas. "We feel the serenity of our neighborhood
will be disrupted by the proposed development. The woods between Brookwood
Estates and Six Mile Road have acted as a buffer to the noise and sight of the
traffic on Six Mile Road. We feel the woods have given our neighborhood a
pleasant backdrop and have added to the value of our homes. We believe the
rr.,, project will be a detriment to our home values and make our neighborhood a less
attractive place to live." The others are some letters that address the same basic
issues. We will make them part of the record. If you wish to have yours read, we
will be glad to do that.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What we propose is a 21 lot subdivision with 80' lots, concrete
streets and sidewalks. As far as this subdivision encroaching on other people, this
is 90' from the road and each home will sell for about $250,000, so as far as these
homes having a bad effect on their value, I don't think it's true. The property has
all utilities, it's got storm sewers, water and sanitary sewers.
James Brock, 30596 Six Mile Road: When my wife and I bought that property six years ago,
there were 3 lots associated with it that we expected to be able to sell in the future
as part of our retirement plan. They had been subdivided about 5 years prior to
that, and meetings with the Planning office here, we were told that these lots were
absolutely developable and it was probably a wise investment. There are people
here tonight who would like to keep that as park land and I would like to suggest
that if they would like to keep it as park land, buy it from me and keep it that way.
My wife and I sent about 125 letters to people in the area, probably alerting them
to the subdivision in addition to the letter sent by the City. We asked them to
respond to the letter either for or against. We got 5 in favor of this subdivision
and we got 1 oppsed to it. I would like to offer those as part of the package
tonight. We also have a copy of the letter sent to the neighborhood making our
14695
point of view known. I am going to live next door to this thing and put our
property into Mr. Soave's parcel to enlarge it somewhat. We think it is the
,tow appropriate thing to do. There is a long woods behind the church for people who
love trees. I love trees as much as anybody else, but I don't want to see houses
interspersed in the middle of trees.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you going to remain there?
Mr. Brock: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: You are not going to demolish your house?
Mr. Brock: No, not at all.
Mr. LaPine: When you bought that property, it was 3 parcels?
Mr. Brock: Four parcels. The parcel on which my house sits and 3 empty parcels behind it.
Mr. LaPine: You were led to believe you could keep your one parcel, put your home on it and
sell the others.
Mr. Brock: Exactly.
Nor. Mr. LaPine: If that were true, let's assume that Mr. Soave hadn't bought the property next to
you and now made a big subdivision, how would they get to those 3 lots directly
behind you?
Mr. Brock: We would have deeded access to those lots. Just prior to Mr. Soave starting this
action, we had been in to talk to the City engineers about that very thing because
our intention was to start something of that sort.
Jeff Coluski, 30419 Bobrich: I do not own the residence, but I am currently living there. It is
owned by my mother. It backs up to that property somewhere on the right side.
We've enjoyed having the forest behind our house. Growing up as a kid, that was
my place to make forts. The owners there were gracious in letting us use that as a
playground not like a park because you can't build a treehouse in a park. Also we
have a nice background to our house in that we can see trees and not houses and
not having somebody looking in our house. Looking out at a house instead of
trees would I think detract from the value. There's some sentimental value and
some esthetic value as well.
Mr. LaPine: I understand what you are saying. We all would love to live on property and look
at the woods. But you are looking at woods that somebody is paying taxes on for
your beauty. Someone owns a piece of property and it can be developed. You
cannot expect somebody to keep woods back there if there is a possibility to
develop the property if it meets all the requirements just so you can have a
14696
background of a forest. If you wanted to keep that forest, maybe you should have
bought that property.
Jeff Coluski: I am opposed to it being rezoned to something smaller.
John Coluski, Jeff s brother: Thirty-three years ago when our family moved to Livonia, what
brought us here was the nice mix of zoning that was in a square mile. There
wasn't all one consistent density of buildings, not a row house development, a mix
of green space. It seems as though Livonia considered Industrial and put it in its
proper space. The green space in this particular mile now seems to be encroached
on because Livonia is somewhat mature. Developers have leased spaces to build
on. This area is zoned for residential, I think one dwelling per acre. What we are
opposed to is increasing that to a higher density so that it becomes more of an
overbuilt area. Also this area has built up with water continuously over the last
years. The Wetlands Act has been enacted specifically for this purpose proving
that over time that over-developing certain areas does prove detrimental to the
ecological system, as well as the surrounding areas. I would like to encourage
you to keep this area clean and enforce what is currently there and preserve what
you have stated in your Woodlands Act that states that trees over 3" are to be
preserved and that the current zoning stay and be developed as half-acre lots.
Hecter Goerman, 31020 Six Mile Road: I do not like the idea of 80' lots. One-half acre is more
acceptable like the new subdivision, Willow Creek, that we fought for and that
.iin,. just went in. There on Six Mile I own 240' across and I have 40'x240' of woods
there backing up to the subdivision behind me, and I don't mind paying the taxes
to those people to see those woods because it also keeps me from looking at 2-1/2'
lots that are covering the back of my property. I don't like to see and hear the
dogs, the kids in the woods. I have 2 acres fully landscaped. I put a lot of trees in
every single year and the woods that are back there, I can walk back there and my
grandkids go back there to play. I do not want another subdivision with all those
houses coming out, the school buses lining up, the cars having to wait for the
school bus kids to get off, like it is now at Willow Creek, because every house has
at least 2 cars, at least 2 kids and 1 dog.
Mark Snitchler, 30571 Bobrich: After talking with a number of my neighbors, many of whom
were referred to in your opening remarks regarding the 80 names referred to in the
petition and letters to the Planning Commission. It appears now that the total
number of names that will be submitted to the commission exceeds 120. The
point before making my remarks to the Commission, there is overwhelming
opposition to this project by the community. I have taken a blowup of the
proposed subdivision and shown all the homeowners who have signed petitions or
sent letters to the Commission indicating their opposition to this. Another point I
would like to make is that during the introductory remarks the reference to David
Jakiebiac on Rexwood - I am holding a petition that was signed by Mr. Jacubiak,
as well as his wife, dated February 12, 1996, and at the top of this he notes
"Disregard my previous support" and he demonstrates his non-support.
14697
Talking with my neighbors, many of the points that have been raised here this
evening, the fact of the matter is that the majority of the adjoining landowners
�.. protest this. The various reasons are given due to the esthetics or the intangible
benefit of having the woods abut the property. It's clear that the woods and the
frontage does give a buffer to the Brookwood Estates frontage on Six Mile from
the traffic and the noise, and there would be a diminution if not from the monetary
value, at least in the esthetic value of the homes looking out your back window,
and as the previous speaker testified, not to see someone else, but to see the
woods, to see the trees, to see the squirrels. In addition to the complaints and
arguments that have been alleged, I think that there is a more substantive reason
for the Commission to deny the request for rezoning. Every Spring, as well as
into the summer, we have a lot of standing water. We are very concerned with the
effects of the water, where that water is going to go if that property is going to be
developed. There were several instances last year where we had an over-capacity.
There was some reference about a review by the Engineering Department as to
there being some need to look at the drainage basin to see whether or not it would
be able to accommodate this. I think that is a very fundamental concern that
needs to be addressed. In addition, we have a significant change in the character
of the property. For one to drive on Six Mile now, you will note you have the
Holy Trinity Church, which is immediately west of where this proposed property
is and then a few homes scattered until you get to the entrance to Brookwood
Estates, and then light development from that point on until you get to Middlebelt.
The proposal that we have here now would very intensely develop this area and
�,,.. cause a loss of these woods between Brookwood and Six Mile, as well as the loss
of the natural buffer that the church enjoys. I know that speaking tonight will be
the pastor of Holy Trinity Church who likewise objects to this development, and
in fact had made offers some time ago to purchase the property because the
church wanted to preserve the woods behind them and to the east. My suggestion
to the Commission would be that there has been no need shown to change the
zoning from the way it exists. I agree that there shouldn't be a taking of the
existing landowner's right to do with this property what they see appropriate, but
the fact of the matter is that when someone did buy the property, they knew it was
subject to this zoning and they were taking a gamble that the zoning could be
altered at some later date. I think that's a risk that the purchaser assumes and not
the people who enjoyed this property for 30 years. I would submit to the
Commission that it would be a fair and equitable solution to allow the developer
to develop it, if necessary, but to keep it half-acre lots. The other suggestion we
propose that if there could be some type of split zoning, where there could be an
accommodation of everyone's interest, that is, to create a buffer where the trees
and the bushes and the shrubs are left intact along the Brookwood Estates boarder,
as well as along the Holy Cross boarder so that the owner of this property if its
deemed prudent could realize some additional benefit by developing this property,
but by the same token the adjoining property owners who strongly object to this
and who have enjoyed this property in its natural condition are likewise
recognized for their opposition to this project.
14698
Mr. Engebretson: So you suggest that if there were such a zoning action that that area that was
left in the natural state then be acquired by each of the abutting property owners?
�... Is that your proposal?
Mr. Snitchler: No, I think that there could be some type of deed restriction placed on the
developer, as developers do all the time, sometimes designate common areas that
would be controlled by a Homeowner's Association. It could be the same thing
here: A Homeowner's Association who would take title to this property and it
would be preserved for the benefit directly for all of the houses that are a part of
the development, but indirectly for everyone and all the adjoining landowners that
have enjoyed this property.
Mr. Morrow: When you sent out your petition, were they aware of what an R-3 zoning was, that
it is considerably larger than the lots that they are on?
Mr. Snitchler: I think that everyone that signed the petition had notice from the Planning
Commission of today's hearing that is making this property zoned for a more
intensive use than the use that is currently permissible.
Mr. Morrow: O.K., and that the homes were going to be in the range of a quarter of a million
dollars?
Mr. Snitchler: I think that's what Mr. Soave indicated when Mr. Brock spoke about the property
that he had bought, that Mr. Soave was going to develop $250,000 to $300,000
homes, as well as sending a proposed plat. But it is my understanding that where
we are at today is just to get before the Commission the issue of rezoning, and
once it is rezoned it has to go back to the Commission for site plan approval. As
long as the 80'x120' lots are approved, he could change that. There has been no
finalized plans submitted as to how this is going to be platted and developed, so
until that time that plan is submitted and approved, that's up for grabs.
Mr. Morrow: I concur with what you say, but I had heard other things that related to property
values and this type of thing. Our role here tonight is to look at this piece of
property and to look at this and see if that is compatible to the neighborhood that
is there, analyze the amount of woods on it, analyze any esthetics that it might
have. Would the zoning be appropriate to the surrounding area? You're right,
they would have to come back with a plan and at the time the things we were
talking about would be looked at and if it is acceptable based on the surrounding
area. There is a lot of the residential that is a little more intensive than an R-3, but
I see about 6 lots that are RUF, possibly 2 or 3 more than that. The vast majority
of people on your petition are backing up to homes that are already behind them.
Mr. Snitchler: Because of the size of the development, it would be impossible for me to show
you 120 homeowners who are objecting to it, but I think the significance of this
poster that we put together, all the homeowners that object to that encircle that
development.
14699
Pastor William Lindholm, Holy Cross Lutheran Church, 30650 Six Mile Road: I have been the
pastor for 26 years. Holy Cross Lutheran Church owns the ten acres of property
%%Or to the west of the proposed rezoning parcels and includes 927.5 feet that directly
borders the proposed rezoning. We hereby state for the record that we oppose
the proposed rezoning of these parcels. We believe that Livonia is one of the
best cities in the world and zoning should not adversely affect present property
owners, but benefit all the citizens--not just a few profit-making interests. We
have not seen evidence which shows a compelling need for smaller lots or
additional housing in this area at this time.
On June 17, 1990 we had accepted a "gentlemen's agreement" to purchase the
wooded area along our property to the east which is part of this proposed
rezoning. The purpose of the purchase was to protect the esthetics of the brush,
wetland and wooded areas from future destruction as well as provide a buffer for
our operations and the neighborhood so that our functions would not be too close
to bother the back yards of nearby residents. Unfortunately, the seller suddenly
reneged on the offer and it was sold to Mr. Brock.
We have also been contacted recently by two real estate agents wondering if we
might want to sell the back portion of our property made up of brush and trees to
developers for the purposes of selling lots and houses. We wish to state to the
Planning Commission and to adjacent property owners that we do not wish to sell
this land because of its wooded beauty, and it affords separation and privacy. We
',oar wish to hold the woods and trees in trust for the environment and for the people.
We could make a handsome profit by selling this land. We want to live in a city
that has woods and parks and trees and spaces instead of congestion and high
density that is detrimental.
Holy Cross Church has been serving the City of Livonia for about 40 years. We
have about 400 families. However, many community organizations and
individuals of the community that are not members of our church use our
facilities. The City of Livonia uses our building to distribute federal government
surplus food. The office of the Wayne Metro Services is located in our building
to provide for the social service needs of many persons. We have a Food Closet
operating out of our facility for any hungry Livonia citizen.
Besides the loss of esthetic enjoyment, density, congestion, and damage to the
environment, we also raise the following serious concerns for our church if the
area is rezoned without a buffer zone (trees, brick wall, privacy screen):
Safety and Liability: With housing right up to our parking lot and exit, which has
quite a bit of traffic at all hours of the day and evening, children can run out onto
the parking lot and be struck by cars. Two children have been killed by traffic in
front of our church.
Vandalism: Unless the developer provides a barrier, we fear that we could suffer
14700
even more vandalism from additional residents. For example, we resided our
garage with vinyl siding this fall, but only one month later it was damaged by BB
;,` shots. Our stained glass windows have been damaged by BB shots, our flood
lights smashed, our vehicles damaged, our custodian was even shot in the ankle
and the back while moving the lawn.
Interference with Operations: We have social functions that last up until
midnight. We fear that cars existing our parking lot will shine their headlights
onto the rear bedrooms of persons living on our property line, and may cause
complaints, which we do not now have. Unless there is a barrier provided, we
fear this would interfere with the church's present operations.
Finally, if the issues of the overall good of our community, existing zoning
integrity, destruction of nature, esthetic enjoyment, population density,
destruction of the environment, and possible interference with a long standing
church operation, are found to be less important than a profit-making subdivision
program, the very least we ask is that the developer provide a barrier between our
existing church operations and residential units.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you clarify your comments of the "gentlemen's agreement" on June 17,
1990 between you and the seller of Mr. Brock's property?
Pastor Lindholm: The seller agreed to sell the three lots that are in the back and we took this to
the congregation and there was a vote on June 17, 1990 agreeing to buy it, but he
reneged and sold it to Mr. Brock.
Mr. Engebretson: All 4 parcels?
Pastor Lindholm: No, only the three rear lots. We were told Mr. Brock was selling the house
and we were just buying the three and the only reason was to prevent what we are
going through tonight. A lawyer told me the agreement would have to be in
writing. Our end was in writing, but he did not sign it, so we lost it, but I am
telling you that we are doing everything we can do to provide some sort of buffer
there, and maybe the developer there will see fit to do something like that.
Tom Brzezinski, 16853 Ryan Road: I have lived there for almost two years. Before then I lived
on one of the half-acre lots in Brookwood Estates for three years, and before that I
lived in Nottingham Woods, which is also at Six Mile and Merriman, and they
also have half acre lots. I lived there for 20 years. One of the key selling points
of this area of Livonia was that we don't have a lot of extravagant homes in this
area, but it always seems to be the half acre lot people, the people who like the big
lots, are the people who come in to buy in these areas. I don't want to lose that. I
wouldn't like to see this area being divided into one-quarter acre lots. When I
bought into Willow Creek Estates, I talked to my builder, Livonia Builders, and it
was apparent to me that she came to you and petitioned to have our lots made into
quarter-acre lots. That petition failed and she was required to build half-acre lots.
14701
I thought that possibly that would be a precedence for this area. I am concerned
now that because of the large scale developments that are possible from behind
`.. my house and behind the other street of Ryan, that maybe we are going to have
areas like this on either side of me and I hope that the precedent set back with my
builder would be set with this builder.
Mrs. Bohley, Purlingbrook: Our lots are almost an acre, but most of the land is to the side
of us, so they are not deep they are wide. I am opposed to this because first of all
this man said he would deed some property to get back to those lots. We live on
one of those nice deeded things, and we have to take care of it because it is not
maintained. It is a real mess. You have to have from what I understand from the
Engineering Department 60' roads. Is that right?
Mr. Engebretson: Typically, that's correct.
Mrs. Bohley: I don't think you have 60' on either side of your house to get back to those lots.
You would have to be knocking down houses on Six Mile to get back in there.
Mr. Nagy: I think the plan is to remove one of the houses. It will be a dead-end cul-de-sac.
Mrs. Bohley: Right now we have people coming down and literally go down the road right
back to the woods with their lights on saying "how do we get to Brookwood", so
if this subdivision goes in, what are we going to be putting up with? We have a
`,r„ sign at the beginning of our street that says "dead end street", we have a sign on
our property that says "private property", but people don't look at that. Traffic-
wise that is going to be a real problem.
Mr. Nagy: This subdivision will end in a cul-de-sac just like the gentleman who spoke from
Willow Creek across the road. It will be the same kind of design as Ryan Road.
Mrs. Bohley: What I am saying is we have people come from the credit union come down.
They think that Purlingbrook runs from Six to Seven Mile, but it dead ends at our
house. Or they will come down looking to get into Brookwood. Whether it goes
into a cul-de-sac or not, I think it is going to be a real problem for our property.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, looking at that map I understand that the vast majority to the north
and east is zoned R-1A. In the area zoned RUFC, the 5 homes that would, for the
most part abut this property, what zoning district would they be if they were not in
an RUFC zoning? Do they meet the requirements for an RUFC?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, they do.
Mr. Soave: This is going to be a cul-de-sac, one way in and one way out. As far as the
woods, I have lived in Livonia for 25 years, I take an inventory of all the woods, I
try and save what I can. I go out of my way to save whatever is feasible to save.
As far as the wetlands that somebody mentioned, there are no backyard drains on
14702
the back of those homes on the old subdivision. This would eliminate that
problem. I have done it 5 different times in the City of Livonia where the
adjacent property owners came in and had wetland problems and within 2 or 3
years after everything has been done, that problem is gone. As far as impacting
those people to the rear, this is going to be one way in and one way out. Those
people in the back wouldn't even know there was a street on Six Mile because
nothing would effect them. I hope you will think about this and my record and
help me out.
Mr. Alanskas: On that 8.2 acres, how many lots are you talking about roughly?
Mr. Soave: This will be a 21 lot subdivision.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-11-1-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and approved, it was
#2-21-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on February 13, 1996 on Petition 95-11-1-26, as amended,
by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile
Road between Stamwich Blvd. and Merriman Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 11 from RUFC to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-11-1-26 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use
Plan designation of low density residential land use for the subject area;
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development of
the subject property in accordance with good land use planing principles;
and
4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the overall character
of the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543 as
amended.
Mrs. Blomberg: I just would like to point out that Mr. Soave does have to come before us with a
plot plan, and when he comes before us, he will state the price of these homes and
the lot sizes and the square footage of the homes. We have had so many times
14703
where we would love to save the woods, and unless you own the woods, you can't
save it. I really feel badly to have to take the woods away from the people who
,` feel they own it. I would feel that way too, but we don't own it, and $250,000
homes would improve the quality and the prices on your houses, so I will support
the motion.
Mr. Morrow: John, if it were to be developed RUF, what would be the lot coverage there?
Mr. Nagy: You have 8-1/3 acres here, so under RUF you are looking at 12 to 14 houses.
Now when Mr. Soave when he comments on his 20 lots, I am not sure he is
factoring in the land that Mr. Brock has. If he factors that land in and they join in
one subdivision for the area, then you might be looking in the area of 28 to 30
lots.
Mr. Soave: With all due respect to Mr. Nagy, we have 21 lots on the whole thing. If there is
to be retention area on the first lot, we will have 20 lots.
Mr. Nagy: As long as you are going to stay with 21 lots, it will be 21 lots.
Mr. Soave: Yes. I will stake my name on it.
Mr. Engebretson: Then we will have 6, 7 or possibly 8 more houses than if it were developed in
the RUF.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Having read the documentation that we received, I was concerned about the
number of letters that address the issue of the devaluation of your property. I
went to see our Assessor today, Judy Nagy, and learned from her that she is not
aware of a single instance in 20 years where the construction of new homes
adjoining other residential property has decreased property values ever. The
second point is that because you have signed this petition and there is pretty much
unanimous opposition to this zoning change from those people immediately
surrounding the petition, that constitutes a protest petition which has great
significance. It is important that we understand how you feel about that. The
Planning Commission deals with matters in the recommending mode. We only
deal with majority votes here, however the final determination on these matters is
made by the City Council. A protest petition requires a majority of votes in order
for a zoning change like this to be successful, and that majority is 6 out of 7.
A roll call on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: Engebretson
ABSENT: McCann
14704
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
`w. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-1-1-1 by Ashley
Construction Company requesting to rezone property located on the south side of
Lyndon Avenue between Newburgh Road and Stonehouse Avenue in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 19 from RUF to R-3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from our Engineering Department dated January 23, 1996 indicating
that they have reviewed the petition and they have no objection to the proposal. We
have a letter from a lady who gives her address as 14550 Stonehouse I am in the unique
position of being a homeowner and a licensed residential developer and real estate sales
person. I am well aware of the ramifications of the proposed rezoning of the Perky
Kennel property. Although I am unable to attend the hearing this evening, I would like
my letter read to the Commission and audience.
I would not in any way wish to be a deterrent in the ability of the owner of Perky's to
sell his property to the highest bidder. He's been an excellent neighbor and we all have
the highest regards for him. My concern lies with developers who have no interest in
what they create except for their financial profits. The neighborhood will be here long
after they are gone.
I would not object to rezoning only if some provision is made to protect the one
irreplaceable resource--the trees. The reason I bought in this neighborhood nine years
ago is the existence of mature trees--not just on Perky's--but through the subdivision.
You can buy new and more expensive houses in other parts of Livonia but not many
with these spectacular trees. Indiscriminate leveling of these trees, purported to be some
of the oldest in the city would be a disaster and certainly impact on the character of the
neighborhood. We are losing many of our maples now because of disease.
We can't stop progress, but we can at least make an attempt at control of our natural
resources. The best solution here would be a small, City-owned park within the project
so ownership of the majority of mature trees would remain with the city rather than
individual property owners. I feel the city must consider this issue when granting a
rezoning of this property. Signed Sincerely by Jane McCarthy.
We have another letter referencing the petition signed by three property owners: Please
take into consideration the effect of the rezoning of Perky Kennel property on the
environmental habitat and survival of mature trees. We feel the neighborhood would be
adversely affected if developers were allowed to level the site. Also the City should
retain ownership of largest amount of existing trees with a park. Signed by Roger E.
Hanton, 14553 Stonehouse; William Reel, 14541 Stonehouse and Glen Lundgren,
14562 Stonehouse.
14705
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Ernie Bourassa, 17570 Ellen Drive: We have put in four other subdivisions in Livonia. We try
everything we can to preserve the trees. We do not intend to knock them down. The
proposal is having a cul-de-sac which would come in southbound off of Lyndon
Avenue,just come in and make a little turn, and come straight back out, leaving
basically the outside perimeter intact.
Mr. Engebretson: How much of that outside perimeter would you intend to leave intact?
Mr. Bourassa: The lot would be basically 80' wide, 120' feet deep, and by the time we put in
your 60' cul-de-sac you're basically right in the center of it. That Perky dog
kennel building would be taken out. There would be 2 or 3 lots on Lyndon
Avenue and then the rest would be in the street in the center of the property.
Mr. Engebretson: So the homeowners on Richfield and on Stonehouse would have some visual
barrier between this development and their existing property.
Mr. Bourassa: The people on Stonehouse would have the backyards of the cul-de-sac that would
be in the center. On Richfield there is one parcel of property that comes out,
there's no house on it right now and will remain as it is. The cul-de-sac would
come in off of Lyndon and basically just make a turn in the center there and go
back out. All the houses would have backyards to them.
soar
Mr. Engebretson: Would you be developing that vacant piece of property currently on Richfield?
Mr. Bourassa: It's already developed. We would build one house on it.
Mr. Alanskas: Did you say there would be three lots on Lyndon Avenue, or five?
Mr. Bourassa: It depends on which layout we go with. We have two in mind.
Mrs. Blomberg: I would like to know the price range would be.
Mr. Bourassa: I would assume that they are all going to be between $225,000 and $250,000.
Mrs. Blomberg: And the square footage?
Mr. Bourassa: The square footage would probably be about 1800 sq. ft. for colonials, 1500 to
1800 for ranches, but probably the colonials and cape cods would be going in
there.
Marilyn Pachota, 14315 Richfield: We purchased our house on an acre of land about 7 or 8 years
ago, and the big charm about it was that we didn't have to go to Canton or Plymouth or
parts west because we had paradise right here in Livonia. We had a rural lot with lots
of trees. I'm not worried about their trees because I have enough of my own, but it's the
14706
idea that when we bought the house we were on a rural setting and were under the
impression that the zoning was for that type of lot and we assumed that the Planning
``r. Commission would honor that and maintain that. We are disappointed that this is being
considered. We are on a dirt road and it's a very rural setting. I feel that the only one
who will profit out of this of course will be the builder. It would lessen the value of our
home. The area on Richfield now is one story and they are proposing two story homes
and that would detract from our value. I feel that we are being sold short by the
Planning Commission by not honoring the rural setting.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding your disappointment that this is even being considered, all landowners
in Livonia have a right to file a petition. We have the obligation once they have done
that, paid their fees, and complied with all the requirements of the ordinance to hold
these public hearings, give notice to all concerned to make whatever remarks they feel
appropriate, but this isn't something that we are initiating. The petitioner and landowner
initiates that and we are totally obligated to go through this process. I would like to put
your mind to rest regarding the decrease in property values. Judy Nagy is just
absolutely, unequivably certain that there has never, in the 20 years she has been a part
of that office, that residential property has been devalued by new property going into the
neighborhood.
Mr. LaPine: We were out there Saturday and do you believe that by developing a subdivision that
it would be more of a hindrance to you? Those dogs barking constantly!
,., Mrs. Pachota: After you have lived there a year, you don't even hear them.
Mr. Piercecchi: My understanding is that the limited opposition to this is the result that the dog
kennels are going to be removed. That's why I think the residents in that area did not
kick up a big fuss.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman,
declared the public hearing on Petition 96-1-1-1 closed.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was
#2-22-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning
Commission on February 13, 1996 on Petition 96-1-1-1 by Ashley Construction
Company requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Lyndon Avenue
between Newburgh Road and Stonehouse Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19
from RUF to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 96-1-1-1 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
`„ 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the recommendation of the
Future Land Use Plan for low density residential for the subject property; and
14707
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for development of the property
consistent with the surrounding area.
fir.
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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-12-2-35 by the West
Livonia Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses requesting waiver use approval to
construct a church on property located on the west side of Merriman Road between
Norfolk Avenue and Fairfax in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department in their letter of January 15, 1996 states they have no
objections. The Traffic Bureau of the Police Department in their letter of January 22
responds that they have no objection to the site plan as submitted. The Inspection
Department in their letter of January 24 referencing the subject petition states that they
have reviewed the site plan and no objections or deficiencies were found. The Fire
Marshal in his letter of January 17 indicates that they have reviewed the subject petition
and they have no objections to the proposal. Lastly we have seven letters indicating
their opposition.
Mr. Engebretson: I have received one of those letters from the immediate neighbor to the north,
Diane Ruth Arpino: When we purchased our nearly two acre parcel eleven years ago
and built our home, we did so because we enjoyed the rural flavor of the area. We spent
extra money to move Edison Lines and extra for all utilities to build our home away
from the road to avoid noise disturbance.
Since that time there have been many changes; apartment buildings, condominium
projects and many, many new homes have been built i the area. Progress is wonderful!
However, I think we're not seeing progress in this proposal.
There are many acres of valuable land in the area that could be potential half acre lots
with homes, without damaging the existing properties. This is an older area that is
growing by leaps and bounds. If this proposed building is allowed it will stop any
further growth. Who will want to build their dream home next to a parking lot?
I have a home next door to this proposed building that is worth in excess of a quarter
million dollars! That's a big investment to me! That represents thirty years of hard
work for my husband and I. That is the place we intend to remain for the rest of our
lives. God willing, a long time! And now you're asking me to live next to a building
that should be in a commercial area. I don't believe that is a fair proposal. I can only
speak for myself and my husband, but believe me, you'll be hearing from many other
14708
residents that are impacted in the same way.
so.., This is not progress, this is not fair and this is not in keeping with our own city zoning
ordinance 19.06. That ordinance states that the proposed must: 1) be in harmony with
the development of the surrounding neighborhood, 2) meet with the general character
and intensity of the existing and potential development of the neighborhood, 3) not
impair the value of neighboring properties nor discourage appropriate development in
the area.
Please see fit to deny this proposal. If you would like a better feel for the area or any
questions answered, please feel free to contact me at (810)471-3304. I would be more
than happy to answer your questions. I, also, invite the Planning Commission to my
home so you could meet with several neighbors and examine the site.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is a protest in reference to a rezoning. Would it also apply to a waiver?
Mr. Engebretson: No. A waiver would only require a majority vote of the council. If it is denied
the petition has to be appealed. If we approve this proposal, it goes automatically to the
Council for their determination.
Ronald Ludwig, Livonia resident and member of one of two congregations that share the Kingdom
`41,,, Hall on Seven Mile just west of Osmus: Our intention is to build a Kingdom Hall that is
very much like a residential building in style; low eves, low hip roof style. This is not
an imposing building by any means. We feel it would fit in very nicely with a
residential neighborhood, although it will have a larger parking lot, of course. The little
house at the front of the property, which is really quite old, and probably does distract
from the property immediately to the north, we are planning as a Phase 2 to improve that
house. We think that in terms of appearance that this will be an improvement and an
appropriate use of the land.
Mr. Alanskas: You want to put in a 5030 sq.ft. building?
Mr. Ludwig: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: This building you are in now, how many square feet is that?
Mr: Ludwig: It's about that same amount, but it's on two levels. It was built in 1969 and it is not
barrier-free and that has been one of the challenges for us, to try to make that building
barrier-free. Because it is a two level building with the lower level partially under the
grade, it has been difficult to come up with a suitable plan to make it barrier-free. We
did look at those possibilities, but came to the conclusion that we should build new. All
of our congregations in the metropolitan area are building the style of the building that
we are recommending. Many are in residential neighborhoods and they blend in quite
nicely, and we don't feel that they are in any way a detriment to the appearance of the
14709
community.
*sr Mr. Alanskas: If you have 5000 square feet now and where you are moving you will have the same
footage, what are you gaining? Do you have plans to make a larger building down the
road?
Mr. Ludwig: No. We feel that this building is adequate for our needs and our growth is modest in
this area. In other parts of the world we are growing like a house afire. The present
building we have on Seven Mile is the only building we have in Livonia. We want to
have one in the community at the present time.
Mr. Alanskas: How many members do you have in your congregation?
Mr. Ludwig: In the West Congregation about 100, in the East Livonia congregation at 125-130. In
total we have about 50 families who are Livonia residents.
Mr. Alanskas: On a weekend service, how many cars would you say you have in the parking lot?
Mr. Ludwig: We would probably have from 50 to 60, and a typical Sunday attendance would be
about 125.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have an option to buy this parcel with the understanding that you get all the
approvals? You don't own the property outright?
fr..
Mr. Ludwig: We have made a deposit contingent upon getting approval.
Mr. LaPine: You own the property on Seven Mile?
Mr. Ludwig: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Can you modify that property to make it barrier-free? Why do you want to move that
location besides not being barrier-free because that can be fixed?
Mr. Ludwig: If we were to expand the lower level, we would have to excavate down into the ground
and create an L-shaped building, expand that. We would also have to excavate down
into the front of the property, create a driveway and parking spaces for handicapped and
a new main entry at that lower level in order to be truly barrier-free. There would still
be steps in the back to be encountered by the elderly or infirm. If we expanded the
upper level and added a larger auditorium and barrier-free restrooms on the upper level,
we would also have to raise part of the grade in the parking lot in order to accommodate
barrier-free parking. We would have to have a driveway that ramped up to that parking
and back down again. We looked at the expense of that and felt that we would be better
off to try to sell and build new.
r.. Mr. LaPine: Have you looked at other parcels in areas that are not so close to residential homes?
14710
Mr. Ludwig: There was a parcel on the north side of Seven Mile, east of Newburgh, but it does have
a park joining the property and does have homes north of it, but we understand that did
sell to a developer before we had a chance. Another parcel on Eight Mile, between
Farmington and Newburgh would have been a suitable size, but it had residences
immediately on the west boundary of the lot and we don't know about the zoning on the
east boundary.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have services during the week, or just Sundays?
Mr. Ludwig: We have services on Sunday morning and afternoon, Tuesday evening, Thursday
evening and Friday morning.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you venture a guess as to what percentage of churches in
Livonia are located in residential areas?
Mr. Nagy: I would guess 75-80% at least.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have any plans to rent out the facilities for use by others?
Mr. Ludwig: Absolutely not. We know that the name Kingdom Hall is a source of confusion.
We never would rent our facilities to anyone else.
Diane Arpino, 20135 Merriman: I am the lot next door to the north. I would like to present the
fir.• commission with some petitions that are signed by the neighborhood with about 145
signatures. We also have a letter from a real estate agent that states that it would effect
our property values. I got that information from a lot of real estate agents, but none of
them would put it in writing. I also talked to an appraiser and he said that a building
like this in a residential area would probably drop our property values from 8-10%.
From the plans we've seen, the building looks like a commercial building. There isn't a
window in it and the response I got from most of the neighbors is that it looks like a
funeral home. I don't feel that is in keeping with our neighborhood, and I really don't
want to see it go in. We bought that property 11 years ago, built our home and enjoyed
our home there. It is a rural residential community, over half-acre lots. People have
worked hard to build their homes and they want to keep it that way. I would like a show
of hands from people here who are opposed. These are all neighbors who are nearby.
You say it is a church and that the zoning is proper for there, but it sure doesn't look like
one. The present building is actually about 130 sq.ft. bigger than what the proposed
building is. Another major concern that we have is for the traffic in the area. Merriman
Road is two lanes and from the information we have from Wayne County, it sounds like
it is going to remain two lanes for years. It is next to impossible to get out of our
driveway right now. To turn left on Merriman, you might as well sit there for 15
minutes. We have a lovely residential area there now and there is room for more
growth. There should be homes in the area; there should be families living in the area.
Right now there is about 18% of Livonia that is non-taxable property. This will be just
�,.. another tax burden to all of us. The congregation is in our community a few lots away
and I don't understand the reason for the move. We wanted to buy the property to keep
14711
anything like this from happening. I know what the cost of the building would be and
the cost of this property. It sure would be a lot more feasible to add on to their building.
�., It would be better for the City to have the church added on to, it would be better for
homes to be in that area, and it sure would be better for the residents. I would appreciate
it if you would deny this petition and give the people back their neighborhood.
**9:00 pm: Mr. McCann arrived at this time.
Alice Melaragni, 31492 Norfolk: We have lived here 13 years. We have one church across the
street and that church has activities going there 5, 6 and 7 days a week. We also have
the apartments there and now we are going to have another church on this side. We
don't need the congestion and traffic. We have one heck of a time getting out to the
road. We would rather have homes. That place is meant to have homes not commercial
property. We have commercial property at Seven Mile and Merriman Road and since
they have been built, there is always vacant space. When you have a vacant building,
you have problems. We need taxpayers, not freeloaders.
Mr. Engebretson: I have never heard such an outcry against any other church in Livonia. This is a
first. We have built churches, we have expanded churches and I am amazed at the way
that you are categorizing this as commercial property. Churches are not only a
permitted use in residential property, they are a preferred use. With regard to traffic
activity, we have that problem throughout Livonia. I try to get on to Seven Mile Road
and have to struggle to do that and it's the same on Eight Mile, the same on Merriman,
`\r the same on Lyndon and the same throughout the City. As I understand it, this church is
going to have activities Sunday morning, Sunday evening and one or two evenings in
the week and Friday morning. It looks like it is more of a benign use than 20 or 30
homes back there. I would appreciate it if we would be respectful of the petitioner. We
may not be as familiar with that denomination as some of the others, but I think to
characterize them in the way that we heard tonight is inappropriate
Kathleen Blares, 19794 Merriman: I am in the new construction that was recently started. My
husband grew up in Livonia for the first 24 years of his life, moved out for 17 and we
got the chance to come back. We looked for months, drove by this property and said
"No, not on a main road" and we continued to go by. We met with the builder and
found out it was a half acre and the lots were beautiful. Our main concern was that
between Seven and Eight Mile on Merriman it is mostly residential and that is why we
wanted to move there. If you drive up and down Six Mile or Seven Mile or Eight Mile,
in between scattered residences are businesses. I understand that it is a church. I belong
to a faith and I don't think that the point is what denomination it is, I think that the
residents understand that it is just another building. The reason we moved here is
because it is all residential and we do have a big traffic problem. Who's going to buy
the building they are in now? I am concerned about that.
Mr. Ludwig: I will be happy to address some of those things in a moment.
Gentleman from the church: Our times of letting in and out of our services is in the evening around
14712
9:00 p.m. when usually traffic has died down by then, and Sunday afternoon is not
usually a lot of traffic. The size of the lots are 500' deep and I would assume that the
�,. lots on the west side are also 500' deep and along the back part of the property it is very
wooded, enough to detract from any visual view of the building from the back side.
Ron Fegan, 31516 Norfolk: My whole back view would be hampered by any rather large building
that would be close to the property line. I have seen some drawings and it concerns me
that a building will go in where there is lots of small animals and loads of bird life. One
of the reasons we enjoy living there like we do is that if they are going to put a parking
lot in there with 60 cars, there will be parking lights that I assume will be on all night.
We spent a lot of money on this home. We moved into this area because we liked it and
now they are going to put what they call a church. I can't call it a church. To me a
church has a steeple and windows with stained glass in them. The neighborhood, 120
people, signed a petition because we are all very concerned. Why they want to build a
building like this in this area, I don't understand. How tall is this building going to be?
Mr. Nagy: The overall dimension of the building is 76'x50'. The front portion of the building
where the carport is, that wing is 28'x44'. The highest point is 22'.
Mr. Engebretson: How tall is your house, Sir?
Mr. Fegan: My house is a two story colonial, say 30'. It's a home. When you live in a residential
area you don't mind looking at homes.
fir►
Mr. Ludwig: We do not add steeples to our buildings. Depending on where it is sited determines
where we put windows. Although it is not in the traditional mode of a church, it really
resembles a large residence.
Betsie Maxwell, 19985 Merriman: I hope we figure out a good community solution. I have grown
up in communities where churches were established and the residences have grown up
around them. The church people were having functions in the summer and it just
changes the nature of the neighborhood. There is a lot of activity and noise that we were
not used to. I express the same concerns about the traffic, the lighting that would have
to be around the structure and headlight traffic. We had hoped to purchase this property
also. Everyone who had talked about purchasing the property talked about renovating
the house or replace it with another home. I think there is the possibility to use the
property very gainfully that way.
Mr. Engebretson: When did you try to buy the property?
Mrs. Maxwell: We had asked the owners to notify us when it was going to be on the market because
we were aware that they were going to be relocating or make that property available.
We were not notified nor did we see anything posted so we didn't get to make an offer.
Joe Essa, 19823 Merriman: I have lived in Livonia for 20 years now. One of the first subdivisions
on Merriman Road started about there. My objection is anything that is non-residential
14713
at this point. When I moved there it was much more rural and you know there is going
to be some development, it can't stay empty forever, but it has evolved into a wonderful
sow residential area. When I moved onto Merriman I said I didn't know if I wanted to stay
on a main road, but it hasn't been as bad as I thought because it has turned into
residences. Since it has evolved into a very nice residential area, I think it should
remain that.
David Smith, 20015 Merriman: I can only concur what the rest of these people have said about this.
The front door of that building is going to directly face my front door. I'm going to look
over 50'-60' and here is this stupid building here. We do not want this thing in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Ludwig: Let me take the issue first of the view of the building and headlights from cars. We
plan to berm the edges and the two sides and the back adjacent to the parking surface
and plant dark green arborvitae about every four feet to create a dense hedge. These
plants will grow to about 6'-7' high and fill out nicely to screen the parking lot. We are
proposing about 180 of those plants to be put in. The parking lot lighting, the City only
allows fixtures 20' high and we would like to use that type. The fixture itself is aimed
downward at the parking surface. It does not project out. There are shields mounted on
them to further restrict the spread to adjacent properties. We wouldn't have them on all
night long. We would have them on only when they are needed at night.
Mr. Alanskas: With a 9' wide greenbelt, how high could it be?
Mr. Nagy: Arborvitae get to be 15' to 20'. The berm itself is 18".
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, can you verify the characterization of the berm and the landscaping to
provide immediate shielding of things like lights, or would it take a few years for the
arborvitae to grow sufficiently to provide a shield?
Mr. Nagy: With a 9' area you are never going to get a total screen. It will soften it, but you will
never get an opaque screen. Four feet of planting will be about car height and take
about three or four years to really establish itself.
Doug Maykovich, 20100 Osmus: I own the property directly west and the property north in back of
that. In my opinion and obviously the majority, that's a misuse of the property. I have
something here that says you can put 20 houses in there and still keep an RUF zoning. I
think the taxes that those homes would generate would fit our school system and City a
lot better.
Mr. Engebretson: The land is there and no one has chosen, for whatever reason, to develop the area
and now we have a petitioner before us with a permitted use that seeks to occupy that
property and we are trying to sort out all the pros and cons.
`r.. Jerry Kennedy, 31500 Pembrooke: I have been a resident of the area since 1959. I have raised three
sons who played in the area. I am opposed, but is it a done deal? I went by Seven Mile
14714
Road and Century 21 has that church listed now. Since 1959 my property has increased
about ten-fold. I would imagine the church also since 1969 has also reaped a profit.
Would this money be going into building their new place rather than revamp the church
they are in? It seems to me it would be easier to take your money and build a new place
rather than revamp the one you are at.
Phil Barbino, 20135 Merriman: About the comment you made about purchasing the property in the
back and building there, I tried to purchase that property to go with Mr. Maykovich and
build together , but I guess I was overbid. He does have plans on that for the last 2 or 3
years to develop that back and put about 20 homes. If I were to purchase that property, I
would put 4 homes back there and I would have put homes in excess of$200,000 each.
I talked to the real estate and the church on Seven Mile has been sold to another
religious group. The gentleman said it was too hard to add on. I've been in the building
trade all my life. If they are not capable of adding on 1000' feet to their building, I will
show them how and donate my time.
Lady from the audience: The parking lot is going to be the biggest problem. There is a church
already existing on Merriman, in the summertime when the church is not going on there
is a whole bunch of rollerbladers and they are always there playing hockey and it would
be like right in their backyard.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman,just a comment, it is my understanding that this is a waiver use.
not a permitted use.
'gay
Mr. Engebretson: That is correct.
Gentleman from the audience: Did I understand you to say that no one has come forward to develop
this land as residential?
Mr. Engebretson: No one has brought a proposal to the City, at least not in my time here.
Gentleman: I guess that would be understandable since there has never been a for sale sign and
people don't know.
Mr. Engebretson: Almost every proposal for residential development that comes through much like
this one, no one knew the property was for sale. These developers find this property.
The City certainly doesn't require the owner to advertise the property. Mr. Ludwig, do
you have a purchaser for the property on Seven Mile?
Mr. Ludwig: Yes, we do.
Mrs. Arpino: They were talking about the landscaping part there, they should definitely put a block
between our property. I understand the church has a right to petition to be there, but
right now we have put a lot of investment in our home. We have a nice backyard and
garden. That berm and high trees is going to run water on our property and we will have
shade there. I thought we had the right to put a garden in our backyard if we wanted to,
14715
and I think it is going to be affected. Our whole property is affected by this.
Mr. Engebretson: John, would it be our expectation that the proposed berm that was meant to be a
benefit to the community should probably be omitted and not create a shade problem for
a neighbor?
Mr. Nagy: I don't think an 18" high berm is going to be a shade problem. The trees will cast a
shadow equal to its height and to that extent you will have shade.
Mrs. Arpino: One of the other people referred to the fact that there has been a lot of activity over
there the last couple of summers and we live right next door. Neighbors can have
parties and do what they please. We have been faced with bonfires going on next door
that are up 30' high. Is this the kind of thing that is going to go on too? These folks
have had their meetings there, right next to us.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you saying the congregation has had meetings there and built a 30' bonfire?
Mrs. Arpino: Yes.
Mr. Ludwig: How could I be responsible for that going on? That was a private party apparently. I
know nothing about it. We don't do that sort of thing. We are a very quiet people. The
issue of the shade from the trees, if you think about sun angles in the summer growing
season, even if a tree did get to 20', it could only cast a summertime shadow of maybe
`r 10'. In the wintertime with lower sun angles, yes, perhaps a shadow equal to its height,
but that of course is wintertime, not in the growing season. We are good citizens.
Someone else mentioned that we are freeloaders. We have about 50 families who are
Livonia residents, and that means we are taxpayers. We are supportive of the
community, we want to work within the bounds of the community and we want to be
good citizens. We believe we have a long history of being good citizens. We respect
the law, the community and our neighbors. We will continue to operate under that
philosophy, the Golden Rule.
Mrs. Arpino: He also spoke to this phase 2 thing with the house next door. On their plans they show
that as a set back of 50'. It is actually about 34'.
Mr. Engebretson: John, would you check that out and if it is show the appropriate correction.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think one of the greatest things about Livonia is that there are more churches than
bars, and that is one of the reasons why we have a great community. However, in the
case of this church, I personally see too many conflicts in connection with Section
19.06. Section A deals with harmony with the surrounding neighbors, Section B
concerns itself with traffic, Section C concerns itself with neighboring property values,
Section E with periods of operation and possible nuances, and Section H with principles
of sound planning. I hate to do this, but based on that I am going to offer a motion to
`., deny this petition.
14716
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was
%or #2-23-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning
Commission on February 13, 1996 on Petition 95-12-2-35 by West Livonia
Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses requesting waiver use approval to construct a
church on property located on the west side of Merriman Road between Norfolk Avenue
and Fairfax in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-12-2-35 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in
compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding
uses in the area;
3) That the proposed use is inconsistent with the developing character of the area.
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.
`'r► Mr. Morrow: My concern is not the appearance of the building, my biggest concern is the
penetration of the more intense use into the residential character of the neighborhood.
As one person said tonight, generally the churches are there first and the neighborhood
grows up around it. Because we are going into a new area, and we are going to be
penetrating very deeply into that lot, it is for that reason particularly that I am supporting
this motion.
Mrs. Blomberg:I too am having problem with this because I like more churches than bars, but
because it is so residential, we feel it is an infringement in this area and therefore I will
support the motion. Honestly, some of the neighbors out there, I understand you have a
right to speak, but some of your negativism towards these people really made me want
to vote to put in this church. Some of you were really rude!
A roll call on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskasi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-1-2-1 by V. C. Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license in connection with a store
14717
located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Dolores Drive and Inkster Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have two pieces of correspondence from City departments, both of which indicate
they have no objections to the proposal. Those departments were Engineering and the
Fire Marshal.
Terry Ferida, president of V.C. Inc. which is Value City Market. Our company bought the old Great
Scott store. We demolished it and rebuilt it. The only part of the store that is not filled
is the beer and wine section.
Mr. Alanskas: The building between your store and the drug store which is now vacant, what are
you going to do with that?
Mr. Ferida: We have put it up for lease and we are entertaining offers.
Mr. Piercecchi: I just wanted to wish you very much success, but I don't know if you are aware, but
we do have a signage ordinance that states that your windows should not have more than
20% signage on them. Would you kindly look into that matter?
ir.. Mr. Ferida: I will. Out of 14 windows, we have only three window signs, but during our Grand
Opening we did have signs to let everybody know we were open.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman,
declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-1-2-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#2-24-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning
Commission on February 13, 1996 on Petition 96-1-2-1 by V.C. Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to utilize an SDM license in connection with a store located on the north
side of Six Mile Road between Dolores Drive and Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 96-1-2-1 be approved subject to the waiving of the 500' separation
requirement as set forth in Section 11.03(r)2 of the Zoning Ordinance by the City
Council for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543;
,,` 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and
14718
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses
in the area, and that the previous building occupied by Great Scott Market had an
SDM license.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with
the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: I'm going to have a problem voting for this. I realize that Great Scott had one. One of
the reasons we have the 500' limitation is to limit the amount of locations where we do
sell beer and wine. Many of our locations in the City were grandfathered in before the
ordinance was developed. I think that if we have an area or mall like this, unless there is
a specific hardship or special type operation, one license in a mall like that is more than
sufficient.
A roll call on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: Blomberg, McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-10-6-10 by the City
Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.06(6) of the
Zoning Ordinance so as to change the definition of a front line as it regards corner lots.
Mr. Nagy: This is a housekeeping chore to clarify the language with respect to the interpretation of
a lot line with respect to a new planned road. The commonly accepted definition is that
where you have a corner lot the narrowest lot width fronting upon a road will be the
front yard. There's a conflict with respect to the ordinance where you have a new
planned road. The new road therefore dictates the front yard and that sometimes proved
to be inconsistent with the pattern of development of the area.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman,
declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-10-6-10 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously adopted it
was:
#2-25-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning
Commission on February 13, 1996 on Petition 96-10-6-10 by the City Planning
Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.06(6) of the Zoning
Ordinance so as to change the definition of a front line as it regards corner lots, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-10-
6-10 be approved for the following reasons:
14719
1) That the proposed amendment will provide a more reasonable method of
determining street frontage on residential lots; and
'`..
2) That the proposed amendment will eliminate confusion and ambiguity in existing
Zoning Ordinance language regarding the determination of a front lot line in
residential districts.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with
the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval for
Pine Meadows Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road
between Fairway and Yale Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: Parks and Recreation Department in their letter of January 10 states they find no
discrepancies or problems with the plan as submitted. Signed by Ron Reinke,
Superintendent of Parks and Recreation. The Traffic Department of the Police Division
in their letter of January 22 states they have no objections with the plan as submitted.
r.. The Fire Marshal in his letter of January 16 indicates they have reviewed the
preliminary plat and have no objections based on the following: (1) provide a hydrant at
dead-end of court in addition to hydrant(s) located along plat roadway,( 2) establish "No
Parking" along that side of the plat roadway accommodating fire hydrants,( 3) if a cul-
de-sac is not provided at dead-end of plat roadway, parking shall be prohibited in turn-
around area from north side lot line of Bldg. #7 to dead-end, both sides of roadway, (4)
extend length of plat roadway approximately 30" north. (This would accommodate
tactical placement of fire apparatus and evolutions with respect residential occupancies.)
We also have a letter from our Engineering Department signed by Raul Galindo, City
Engineer, stating the have reviewed the preliminary plat and the following comments
are made relative thereto: (1) relocate the "T" turnaround 20' further north for better
drive access to Lots 8 and 9, (2) the proposed pavement should be orientated so as to
provide for 14-1/2 feet between the east property line and the back-of-curb, (3) it is
strongly recommended that the Schoolcraft service drive be extended across the
excepted parcel to the new right-of-way. The proposed service drive would be
consistent with other frontages accessing the Schoolcraft service drive in this area.
Further, better alignment of this existing sidewalk areas at the current service drive
dead-end would be achieved.
Mr. Engebretson: In addition to that, I have two letters and a petition. The first letter is from Joy
Knapp of 14629 Ronnie Lane. I am a homeowner in the SMB Estates Subdivision and I
oppose the development of the Pine Meadows subdivision as currently proposed. This
14720
development, as proposed, would allow construction of a single strip of new homes with
a street running behind nine existing lots in our subdivision. This in effect constructs an
alley behind these homes. This is totally inconsistent with other developments in
Livonia, would be seriously detrimental to the property value of the existing homes, and
present safety and security problems for both the current and new residents. I have lived
and been employed in various parts of this city for 43 years and can think of no other
area of the city where a new access street was built behind existing homes. In all cases
where homeowners have a street in their back yard (i.e., homes backing on Newburgh
Rd.) the street existed prior to the home development. Therefore, any person who
chose to live this way did so with full knowledge of its drawbacks and paid a
correspondingly lower price for their home. I ask that you seriously consider my
concerns and those of my neighbors and vote to against this development as proposed.
The second letter is from James and Holly Borrusch. We are the owners of Lot 79, a lot
which will be affected by the captioned proposed development with the planned road
being directly behind our backyard. Suffice it to say that we have many personal
concerns and reasons for being vehemently opposed to the Pine Meadows Subdivision ,
but those concerns and reasons aside, it is our opinion that the subdivision as proposed
exhibits poor planning in general. We do not believe having a street at the front of our
home (Fairway) and a street at the back of our home (Pine Meadows Court) is proper
planning and in keeping with the high standard for communities in Livonia. We are
hopeful that the Livonia Planning Commission will be of the same opinion. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
In addition I have a petition with approximately 20 signatures.
Bill Donnan, with Arpee/Donnan, 36929 Schoolcraft, Livonia: I represent Mr. Ireland of Kire
Homes, the proposed developer of this subdivision. We are proposing a subdivision
with 9 lots. We do realize that there would be a severe impact on the property owners
on the west side with a street in the rear of their homes. We understand that the City
planner had some concerns about that, and we redesigned the plat. We propose to pull
the road back, turn the one lot on the north end so its side facing the rear of the existing
lots. The end of the turnaround is going to be at a vacant lot owned by the developer.
The remainder of the four lots in that subdivision on the side we propose 31' wide, 3-1/2'
higher berm to screen that road. With a 3-1/2' to 4' berm it would be very unlikely that
you would see the road. If you are standing in your back yard, you would see the road,
but with only 9 lots, I would expect there to be very little traffic.
Mr. Engebretson: Who's going to maintain that greenbelt?
Mr. Donnan: We will have to set up a property owner's association, and the owners of the 9 lots in
the subdivision would be responsible for the maintenance.
Jerry Pfeifer, 14515 Ronnie Lane, President of SMB Estates Civic Association: I have a letter I
would like to submit to the Planning Commission. We represent 436 homes in the area.
The new Pine Meadows subdivision would be embedded within the Biltmore Estates
14721
subdivision. This proposed plat layout is not consistent with the character of the homes
in the area and not consistent with the norms within the City of Livonia. Our major
concern does deal with the street. In an attempt to maximize the homes in the area, they
have located the street on the extreme lot lines there and boarding the homes abutting
the fairway. We feel that this would severally impact and have a detrimental effect on
those residents. I think that this is not the normal type of situation allowed in Livonia. I
can't attest as to why this lot got developed in the first place. We are going back 30
years now when the subdivisions were originally built, and this lot wasn't built, I can't
attest to that. What we are dealing with now is the current situation and how it will be
developed, and we are opposed to the existing layout. In particular the one thing that we
were showed was that the street was only 28' wide. We feel that this would give an
alley-like appearance to it and would eliminate parking on one side of the street to have
proper access in and out. The dead end means you would have to back up your vehicle,
turnaround and exit then. We feel that this would have a detrimental effect on delivery
and trash trucks coming into a subdivision and on fire trucks. These things we have
highlighted in the letter. One of the other concerns was that the way the street was
going to be located on one end of the property, it would mean encroaching on the
easement where there are existing utilities. Would you have to dig up the utility lines of
the residents who are already there? Also besides having this second street behind these
property owners, it brings up the responsibility of maintaining that right-of-way. Those
residents along Fairway do not want to take on the responsibility of maintaining that
right-of-way. We feel that if the objections we are raising are not sufficient, then we
will have to work out how to maintain that right-of-way. Sometimes having the
`,., subdivision take over that maintenance, the subdivision association falls apart and can
go into neglect. About the natural drainage in the area, we want to make sure that any
development in the area does not affect any drainage and any tapping into the sanitary
storm sewer and the water supply lines do not negatively impact the existing
subdivisions. We would like to know what type of homes are going in there, the height
of them, the set-backs and the actual entrance off of Schoolcraft. We do not know too
much about the builder and how he has performed in the past. Thank you for keeping
Livonia a well-planned community.
Dennis Szado, 14168 Fairway: If you have a street in front of you and a street in back of you, I can't
see how your property value is not going to go down. I have kids. Putting a road in
back of my yard, there's a chance that something is going to happen. I want them to feel
safe. With a road back there, I can't feel that way. I don't think it should go through
with the way it is set up.
Mr. McCann: Sir, one of the things we as a commission have seen done in the past, and that is you
have a 30' proposed berm behind your home and several of your neighbors became upset
when he said to get a homeowner's association, and I understand that, that you are
depending on 9 homes to take care of property. It has happened that the berm is deeded
over to the individual property owners. That would add extra depth to your property,
give you the buffer zone, give you the responsibility of taking care of it. The road
dedication wouldn't matter either, would it Mr. Nagy?
14722
Mr. Nagy: Correct. Not the full 30' but they could get the majority of that portion containing the
berm.
Mr. McCann: I understand how you feel, but we couldn't restrict all development in the City. The
zoning is proper. They are asking for 50' right-of-way instead of 60' right-of-way and
that would be the only variance they are requesting. Do you think this is something that
you and your neighbors would want to live with, the extra property, but you would be
responsible for taking care of this?
Mr. Szado: I don't think so. Speaking for myself, how am I supposed to get back there to do this
maintenance?
Mr. McCann: You would move your fence line back 30'.
Mr. Szado: But you don't have the same situation. You are right on the road. Right now I am
totally opposed to it, but if it goes through, then I guess you would have to ask
individual people.
James Borrusch, 14048 Fairway: We have a list of concerns I would like to read. We strongly
object to having a double frontage lot. We know we would loose the privacy of our
backyard to somebody's front yard. Also, the investment in our house would loose
value because of those double frontage lots. There would also be streetlights back there.
There is no berm at the beginning of the property on Schoolcraft. We feel that the
subdivision as currently planned does not meet the standards of the surrounding
neighbors and the City of Livonia.
Rob Wenderski, 14193 Park: I am a 30 year resident of Livonia and would like to inquire of the
petitioner the types of homes that would be built there.
Mr. Engebretson: We will inquire that of the petitioner.
Gerald Rzeppa, 14096 Fairway: I have a pool in my back yard with a deck. My concern is that I am
sure the City of Livonia would not allow me to build a pool in my front yard because of
the street, and now you are going to have a street in my back yard, so is my back yard
now my front yard? Also, you wonder about sheds because now you have a street right
there. The new homes are going to be facing our back yard and my garage is about 6'
from my property line, so that brings it really close to this property. My objection is to
the street. It would look more like an alley because it's only 28' wide. We don't want to
look like Detroit.
Mr. Nagy: This is 3' less than the standard.
Mr. Piercecchi: The previous speaker commented that this does not meet the ordinance. John, is
there a variation here that does not meet the ordinance?
r..
Mr. Nagy: You have 2 ordinances. You have the zoning ordinance which sets the minimum lot
14723
size and widths and it meets that. There is also the plat ordinance that sets the standard
with respect to street rights-of-way, turnarounds, pavement widths, cul-de-sacs, radii
`o► and that kind of thing. They have minimum and optimum standards. With respect to
optimum standards, there are some deviations, but they are not violations. The
Engineering Department in their report did not find difficulty with the plan. We would
rather have a full cul-de-sac, but because of the narrow width of the property, they
wanted to have a T-type turnaround. In this case with the limited number of lots, will it
work. Yes, it will. Are there other cases in the City like this? Yes, there are. To say
that there are violations of the ordinance, no, but there are some standards that are not
being optimized.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am under the impression that if something meets the ordinance, we cannot stop it.
Is that true here, John?
Mr. Nagy: I think you have a right to draw your own conclusions and put whatever weight you care
to with respect to the health, safety and welfare issues with respect to this development
knowing the standards and requirements of the City. I think the ordinance gives you
some judgment in that area to make a determination. It just is not that if it meets them,
you pass it, and if it doesn't meet them, you don't. You try to come up with something
that is in harmony and consistent with prevailing character of the area so that both can
live in harmony.
Lady from the audience: You would have to lower your standards to fit houses in there. I have lived
in Livonia my whole life and I can't think of one other place where anyone has a street
both in their back yard and their front yard. When we bought those homes we were told
it was landlocked, and unless you lower your standards, it is landlocked. I and most of
the people around there have kids and that definitely is a safety problem.
John Michniak, 14097 Park: I am one of those realtors. I am speaking because of a conversation I
had with one of my neighbors. He used the word loyalty to me. As I realtor, I buy and
sell real estate. I heard that property values won't be affected, it usually brings them up
somewhat. I would agree with that for the most part. If I tell a client that a house has a
road in front and in back, whether there is a berm or not, I can almost guarantee you that
they will say "Can you find me something else". Those homeowners now will have to
sell at a lower price. I have loyalty to the people in my subdivision, and I believe the
Commission has loyalty to not lower their standards.
Mr. Engebretson: John, I have heard several times now that we don't have a similar situations in
Livonia. Are there any?
Mr. Morrow: Item 1 had a similar situation at Purlingbrook and Doris.
Mr. Nagy: There are 4 or 5 homes on Purlingbrook on a private easement. The most recent
situation is on Wayne Road, half way between Six Mile and Seven Mile called Curtis.
North of Curtis on the west side of the street there's a new road that services about 4 or 5
lots. There are some existing homes on Hampton Court that now have a road in front
14724
and back. That road ends in a T-type turnaround. Van Road, the south side of Seven
Mile across from Bicentennial Park, have lots that back up to Veri Court, double
`'► frontage lots. T-type turnarounds, Oakwood Drive has a T-type.
Eric Haupt, 14120 Fairway: I would like to make a comment. The deviations that I've heard so far
are in the more affluent parts of Livonia. Those houses are in much larger and support
more mature families than you find in this neighborhood. Our homes are all in the
1200-1300 sq. ft. area. They are really starter type homes, and I think that given that
situation where there would be a street both in the front and back of the home would
have a serious impact on the ability for me to market my home to only those people who
would not be concerned with the fact that there is a street both in front and in the rear.
Were I to be shopping for a home with my current family situation with 2-3/4 kids, I
would never have purchased a home of that configuration. If the T-type turnaround is
going into the vacant lot, what will become of the vacant lot? In order to make my
property look presentable, I have been maintaining it. I question whether they will be
able to build a home on a lot that is 80' deep instead of 90'. Will that be developed?
Also the telephone poles would currently run right down the middle of the proposed
street and would I have to pay to tear up my backyard to bury those. I strongly oppose
this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: That T-turnaround would just come up and abut that vacant lot, it doesn't intrude.
John, what would be your anticipation of how they would resolve the matter of the
telephone poles?
Mr. Nagy: The developer would pick up the utility and bury it on their own property easement. I
don't know what the utility companies would do with respect to the utilities that are
already there.
Mr. Haupt: The vacant lot issue and maintenance has not been addressed.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't know if that is a part of this plan. Whatever is going on there now I
presume would continue.
Mr. Haupt: The prior owners were cutting it about three times a summer. Is there a maintenance
proposal for that lot?
Mr. Engebretson: The City has requirements that the property owners keep their property
maintained. You can call the City and they will cut it and send the bill to the property
owner.
Dennis Frestel, Guido Associates, Architects and Planners, 2435 Orchard Lake Road, Farmington
Hills: I happen to know some of the adjacent property owners. I believe that a lot of
these concerns that everyone has is due to the fact that we have some inappropriate
planning for a narrow parcel. It doesn't seem to exemplify good planning or good
integrations with the well planned existing subdivision. I do believe that some of the
issues brought before you tonight I would like you to consider the following. I was
14725
privy to a letter from the Engineering Department about the extension of the Schoolcraft
surface drive being suggested. I would like to address the concern of the lack of a
greenbelt as you approach the southerly half along the 50' right-of-way. I had a concern
about lots 7, 8 and 9 meeting the minimum width and depth requirement. It seems that
lot 9 has a less developable building frontage, particularly since the easement runs
through that piece. The side yard on the east side is only 27.75' at the 30' front set back.
I did have a concern with the cul-de-sac and T's with the Fire Department
maneuverability. Apparently the Fire Department has reviewed this. Just as a point of
record, I think we would have to look into a looped water main for fire protection.
Gerard Grysko, 35733 Middleboro: I guess I would get a side view of house #9. I don't know how
they are going to get a house in there and what kind of a view I'm going to get.
Mr. Nagy: It would be back-to-back.
John Belaire. I live on the corner of Middleboro and Fairway. I am not directly affected except for
being in the neighborhood. My concern is mainly for the property value. I'm not sure
that I would have ever bought there if there were a road running behind my house. I feel
that if those 6 or 7 houses along there were going to be a drug on the market, that some
of the other ones in the neighborhood are going to have lower property values. You said
Gerard would be looking at the back of house #9, does that not make the frontage of that
house only 61'?
Mr. Nagy: The lot width by ordinance is measured at the building setback line. The building set
back line is measured at 30' from the right-of-way line.
Edgar Donabedian, 14216 Fairway: I just moved into that area 2 years ago. I would be extremely
disappointed if this were to go through. The view from my kitchen window, there is
nothing there, and then I would be looking at the side of a house. I can't imagine this
would do anything but decrease the value of my house.
Donna Marie Kuhn, 14121 Park: I was born and raised in that house. It was brought up by my
parents many years ago that there would be only 3 houses going up there, not 9. I just
don't understand how you can have a street in front and back. I would just like you to sit
and really look at this. How can you put a subdivision in the middle of another
subdivision? This was not the plan sent to us.
Mr. Nagy: This change was to try and improve upon it. We tried to shorten the length of the road
bringing it down by turning the lots to the north around to the side so that there isn't as
much pavement being extended into the area, wider back yards against those other back
yards that back up north and northeast, trying to widen the width of the area on the west
between the roadway and the existing lots on the west, put a wider greenbelt, higher
mounding for the berm. The change was to try and improve upon the development.
"'� Mr. Engebretson: The land is zoned to permit this kind of development.
14726
Ms. Kuhn: That's a pretty tight squeeze in there. I would like to see a street in Livonia with that
narrow dimension.
Gary Haapala, 35685 Middleboro: One of the concerns I've heard here tonight is a compatible
developement in the area. One thing that was done very nicely in planning our
subdivision was a cul-de-sac road. This road is a T-type. Stoneleigh Village which is to
the east of this came in later and it was all done with cul-de-sac roads and no T-types.
Mr. Engebretson: We would put a cul-de-sac in there if there were room, but there just isn't room.
Mr. Donnan: The developer plans to be in the $170-$180,000 price range. Also, on Lot 75 the T-
turnaround will not extend into that lot. He will be building on that lot eventually. The
T-turnaround will not shorten that lot. There are existing overhead power and telephone
lines along probably somewhere 2'-3' behind the proposed curb. One of the rules for a
new subdivision requires that all electric services be underground. If the poles would
have to be moved, they would be moved over to the property line all at the developer's
expense. As far as sanitary sewer and water, there are adequate facilities in the area to
service this subdivision. The other big item seems to be the street in back of a lot. A
street of this nature probably is not all that common, but there are hundreds of lots
throughout Wayne County being developed every year that back up to major
thoroghfares without even a berm and they have no trouble selling at all. I can only
think of one place on Merriman Road where this is the case. It's a short road going no
place, it's never going to be extended, and it only services 9 lots.
Now
Gerald Rzeppa: I think we need to visualize this as an Oreo cookie. What he just described are
homes that are probably 1500 to 1800 sq. ft. and $175,000-180,000. We have homes
that are $112,000-115,000. We have 1000 sq. ft., so what you are going to do is
sandwich between two rows of homes that are 1000 sq. ft. and you are going to have
1800 feet in between. The new proposed street would mean that we would now have
two entrances on to Schoolcraft in about 200 feet of each other. That's not consistent.
Mr. McCann: I am going to make a denying resolution. I am concerned about this one. I hoped that
we would see one or two less lots and widen the distance between them and put a circle
drive at the end and eliminate a lot of the problems. I don't believe they have complied
with the standards that Livonia requires.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it
was
#2-26-96 RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning
Commission on February 13, 1996 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Pine Meadows
Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between
Fairway and Yale Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat be
`�- denied for the following reasons:
14727
1) That the proposed preliminary plat fails to comply with all of the standards of the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and Subdivision Control Ordinance with
%kw respect to the open space requirement and standard road right-of-way width;
2) That the proposed preliminary plat will have a detrimental effect on abutting
residential properties; and
3) That the proposed preliminary plat is not drawn in accordance with standard
subdivision layout criteria.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting
property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and
copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department,
Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mrs. Blomberg: One thing I would think is that the new homes would be facing the back yards of
the old homes. In Livonia people can park their campers and whatever behind their
house, so these homes could be looking at backyards that would have something less
than desirable to look at. I don't think it is a good plan.
't"" Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to make a motion to table this for further study.
Mr. Engebretson: The motion failed for lack of support.
Mr. Morrow: The petitioner here has certainly heard the concerns of the neighbors and I thought
Mr. McCann's comments were very applicable to giving him an opportunity to see if he
can work a better plan, so for that reason I'm going to support the denying resolution.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe that this land will ultimately be developed and it is possible that it will
be developed just as you see it. The proposal does meet the ordinance.
Mr. Morrow: He will have the opportunity if he decides to pursue this with the Council. It will go
there unless he decides to withdraw.
Mr. LaPine: I have mixed feelings on this because I have always believed that people who own land
have a right to use that land. One of the big problems to me is the berm. Basically what
happens here is that the berm is on the other side of the street. The people who have to
maintain that berm are on the other side of the street and they won't want to have to go
across the street to maintain that berm. If there were some way that these people could
agree that they would take over the ownership of that property, take the 30' and the
builder would be required to put wall-to-wall shrubs. That still doesn't take away the
''�- fact that you have a street that close to rear yards and you never know when an accident
is going to happen. A car could go through that berm. I feel that this is just a bad layout
14728
for a subdivision. I don't know of any solution that you could come up with to change
this. The only solution would be that each individual property owner buy up that parcel.
Mr. McCann: I would like it to be known that the Chair's position that this is in compliance with all
ordinances, however it was my position that it did not comply with all the standards of
the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and Subdivision Control Ordinance. It does not
comply with the Open Space Ordinance and Right-of-Way Ordinance.
Mr. Engebretson: You are absolutely correct.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for
Loveland Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Loveland
Avenue between Curtis and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the
surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The Parks and Recreation Department in their letter of February 8 referencing the
Loveland Subdivision indicates that they have reviewed the preliminary plat and at this
time find no discrepancies or problems in the plan as submitted. The City Engineer in
his letter of February 8 referencing the Loveland Estates Subdivision preliminary plat,
the following comments are made: 1) It would be preferable to have a 60' radius in the
cul-de-sac area; 2) It will be necessary to relocate the existing overhead wiring through
'y"' the site in order to be in compliance with the subdivision control ordinance which
requires underground wiring in all new subdivisions; and 3) It may be necessary to
legally vacate the Pickford (County) Drain which currently traverses the site. The above
abandonment process would be handled by the Wayne County. Appropriate storm
sewer systems will be required in place of the current open drain to outlet surface
drainage from the surrounding areas. The Traffic Bureau in their letter of February 12
states they have no objections to the site plan as submitted.
Mr. Engebretson: We also have a petition signed by 385 people against the petition and 10 people
for.
Joe Rotondo, 32401 W. Eight Mile, Livonia: I am petitioning for preliminary plat approval to
develop and build the homes. The homes will be as good or better as in the existing
subdivision.
Mr. Engebretson: We became aware that the Michigan DNR made a preliminary finding that that
area could not be developed because it was judged to be a wetland. Do you have any
more recent information?
Mr. Rotondo: I gave the Planning Commission information on that from Wayne County. There is a
drainage ditch that used to run from Farmington Road on down. The rest of the
drainage ditch has been all covered up. The only existing drainage ditch, that has been
abandoned now, is on the proposed property to be developed.
14729
Mr. Engebretson: I am referring to the letter from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to
Mr. Williamson of Brooks Williamson & Assoc. that basically says that they concur that
firw wetlands exist on the site and are regulated under the above referenced Act. While
conditions of the site may change at some future time, in the meantime no work can be
undertaken on this site and that the jurisdiction of the wetland determination is valid for
five years from the date of this letter, which is August 7, 1995, unless new information
warrants a revision of the delineation before the expiration date. It is our impression
that unless there is a reversal of this letter, development is stymied.
Mr. Rotondo: Do you have the information on the Pickford Drain that I recently submitted to Mr.
Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: We did advise Mr. Rotondo of those findings and in that connection Mr. Rotondo did
advise our office that he was doing a reevaluation of those findings. The basis for his
argument was the evidence that he submitted to our office and he was going to use the
documentation with regard to the Pickford Drain and that evidence as of June 22, 1994
as to the origin of the now abandoned drain. He is using this as evidence as a cause for
reevaluation. We are waiting on Mr. Rotondo's efforts to try for a reevaluation.
Mr. Engebretson: Can we proceed on this matter without the DNR giving information that would
eliminate this obstacle. Reading this letter literally, no work may be undertaken within
the regulated wetlands.
Mr. Nagy: We take that letter very seriously and we presented to the proprietor that unless he can
present evidence otherwise, that is the best information we have and therefore there is a
wetland impact and the subdivision cannot be implemented in the manner shown.
Mr. Rotondo: I am still waiting for the DNR to get back with me. It should be in 4 to 6 weeks.
Mr Morrow: I don't see how we can go through with this petition under the circumstances.
Mr. McCann: I would suggest that a representative here in the group speak on behalf of the group
and then look to a tabling resolution.
Mr. Morrow: We know how bureaucracy works. Do you think we should put a time frame on this
petition?
Mr. Engebretson: We will table it to a date uncertain and if it hasn't occurred within a year, we can
bring it back and deny it and the petitioner could always refile.
William Wells, 18350 Loveland: We have some information on the drain that shows it is part of a
creek, not a drain. The sources of the information is in this packet I will give you.
Memos from the DNR here states that there is also all kinds of vegetation, trees and
other things that includes wetlands. It shows an intermittent stream as what this creek
�... actually is. We feel that the proposed project is non-conforming to the existing
neighborhood and would greatly upset the quality of life that the area residents currently
14730
enjoy. Nonconforming issues would be streetlights, sidewalks which we do not now
have, a subdivision which we do not now have in that area. We have safety concerns as
',., far as traffic. We have handicapped in the area. There is a drainage problem. That's a
low spot and the water has to go somewhere. We know the taxes are going to change
and I doubt if they are going to go down. No doubt the DNR has already suggested that
this is a special piece of property. There is nobody here that denys that people have a
right to build a house there, but in conformance to the neighborhood is what we would
like to see. We feel that the zoning that is there now is improper. We know you had a
letter given to you stating that if it meets other criteria of the ordinance, and no doubt
the DNR is a stumbling block for this project right now. We do not want to get into this
type of development. It is a subdivision placed in the middle of what we consider rural.
(Mr. Wells then showed some photographs of the area showing the creek and
surrounding areas)
Jim Naum, 18325 Loveland: (distributed sketch of the area) The first drawing shows the low land.
The proposed lot#1 is completely forward of my house. I will have a constant view of
the back of that house. From the side door, you get the same view of the houses on lots
1 and 2. From the rear door of my house, you would now see the rear of houses on lots
2 and 3, and from the backyard, lots 4 and 5. (Mr. Naum then showed photos of these
views). I hope these pictures will help you visualize what the area would look like if the
development went through. On Loveland, our neighborhood between Curtis and
Clarita, the first house was built approximately 60 years ago and the last house was
completed about 5 years ago. In the span of 55 years, there have been many property
'"ow owners, lot splits and the building of 40 homes. These homes were added to the
neighborhood one by one, by different builders, and are different sizes, and none of
them seem out of place. I chose to live here because of the rural setting. I would hope
that this same good planning would continue. We face a proposal that would increase
the number of houses on our block from 30 to 40. We are not against building new
homes on this property, but we would like to see them become part of the existing
neighborhood and not be developed as a neighborhood within a neighborhood. Two or
three new ranch-style homes could be built facing Loveland, set back with existing
homes, would be a welcome addition to our block.
Tony Farrugia, 18398 Shadyside: I back up to this and I am also one of the realtors involved. Of
course I don't oppose it. The gentleman before me mentioned that his taxes might go
up. I welcome that. I wouldn't mind paying a few extra dollars a year knowing that
when I do sell my property I'm going to get a lot more money. I would like to assure the
neighbors that if this development does go through it will be first class development. I
know Joe Rotondo well and anything he would put in would be put in with care and
with the neighborhood in mind. There is nothing non-conforming with what he is
proposing to do here. As a correction, this is not for rezoning. This is right within the
rezoning for what it is called for. I live there and I plan on staying there.
Suzanne McInerney, 19020 Mayfield: I would like to sign a petition later too. I live across from the
old Pierson Center. It is really very congested on what is called Old Mayfield, but I can
cross my own street and cross a little walkway where the school is, walk over to
14731
Loveland. I walked my dog down there for 16 years. I enjoyed that street. It is getting
very congested around the school. I'm tired of all this development that is going on. I
Now was driving to Meijers on Seven Mile Road and 2 deer crossed the road. If we get
Livonia where we are all on each other's throats and all congested in, it is not going to
be a nice area to live in. You would need more police.
Barbara Naum, 18325 Loveland: We also have the stream in our backyard. It is an intermittent
stream and it does go all the way down to Curtis Road. From what I understand from
the daughter of the previous owner of the property, we were led to believe it was sold on
a contingency basis. I wanted that to be on public record.
Gregory Spiewak, 18320 Loveland: This will have a detrimental effect on the abutting properties.
Livonia allows the storage of RV's, boats, whatever, behind their houses. You can see
that a few properties will be looking at 5 backyards. We abutting property owners on
half acre lots with single home parcels facing the main street, Loveland. This proposes
something so radical, it just glares at you. This is not in keeping with the conformity of
the neighborhood. Whatever happened to the vacated Pickford Avenue, and why isn't
that extended through this parcel? Also who is going to be responsible for the
improvements that are going to be needed for the water and sewer.
Mr. Engebretson: The utilities will be the responsibility of the developer if this is successful. If it is
not successful, the petition that was submitted made a recommendation that the Planning
Commission on its own motion rezone the property. What I think will happen, if the
`` petition fails, the Planning Commission will most likely file a petition to rezone the
entire property from Curtis to Clarita. If this petition fails, it appears that would be the
appropriate thing to do to indicate the zoning district that they actually are.
Al Giss, 18250 Loveland: Mr. Chairman, you said this is currently up to the DNR and that's the way
it will stay until deemed by them what that land is?
Mr. Engebretson: We have no power to overrule their finding. We have in our files an official
finding that that property is a wetland which comes under the control of the DNR with
one exception. The landowner may make a deal with the DNR to mitigate that wetland
and develop an offsetting wetland somewhere else.
Jeffrey Kolar, 18234 Loveland: The wetland reclamation which is if someone can replace the
wetland. You can't just replace that piece of property. Everything behind it is probably
10'-15' higher than the Loveland area. If you fill that property, what happens to the low
part next to it? It will retain the water.
Mr. Engebretson: Normally the DNR has to have 5 acres or more, but the broader area that you
referred to is a part of this bigger picture here.
Mr. Rotondo: I am not trying to do anything that is out of the ordinary. It was zoned just the way I
Now platted it. I never tried to hurt the neighborhood.
14732
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman,
declared the Public Hearing on this petition closed.
`.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it
was
#2-27-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 13, 1996
on Preliminary Plat approval for Loveland Estates Subdivision proposed to be located
on the west side of Loveland Avenue between Curtis and Seven Mile Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table this petition to date uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting
property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and
copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department,
Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded
and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Not. Mr. Piercecchi left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Motion by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#376-95, to hold a public hearing on
whether a possible amendment to Section 2.10(4) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be
made to increase the square footage of attached garages to 900 square feet without
accessory building, with a limit of vehicle openings to three, with the provisions
regarding detached garages and lot coverage percent (including front yards, side yards
and rear yards) to remain as is.
On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and approved, it was
#2-28-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #376-
95, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be
held to determine whether a possible amendment to Section 2.10(4) of the Zoning
Ordinance shall be made to increase the square footage of attached garages to 900
square feet without accessory building, with a limit of vehicle openings to three, with
the provisions regarding detached garages and lot coverage percent (including front
yards, side yards and rear yards)to remain as is.
,...� FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section
23.05 of Ordinance #543,the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and
14733
that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council.
'�..• A roll call on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Piercecchi
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning
Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Section 18.50D with
regard to real estate signs.
Mr. Piercecchi reentered the meeting at this time.
On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was
#2-29-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby
establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.50D with regard to real estate signs.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section
23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and
that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the
717th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held January 16, 1996.
On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was
#2-30-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 717th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on
January 16, 1996 are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was
#2-31-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 718th Regular Meeting held on January 30, 1996
are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
14734
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Rite
Aid Pharmacy requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at
'r.. 29250 Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Nagy: The petitioner has asked to have this item rescheduled. They are coming forward with a
new sign proposal.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was
#2-32-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Sign
Permit Application by Rite Aid Pharmacy requesting approval for signage for
commercial building located at 29250 Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 to
date uncertain.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Apex
Sign Group requesting approval for signage for the property located at 37650
Professional Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Six Mile Road, west of Newburgh Road. They
are proposing a 30 sq. ft. ground sign to be located in the berm along Six Mile Road of
the property. They are allowed a 30 sq.ft. sign, so they conform to the ordinance.
Mr. McCann: I think the only issue remaining on this is that it would not be illuminated beyond
10:00 p.m.
Wayne Wilsey, Apex Sign Group, Inc.: It is a legal sign in a legal location, and I checked with the
clinic and they said they would cut the hours off at their closing.
On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was
#2-33-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Sign Permit Application by Apex Sign Group requesting approval for
signage for the property located at 37650 Professional Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 18 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Apex Sign Group, as received by the Planning
Commission on January 22, 1996 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond 10:00 p.m.
3) This sign is approved for the graphics shown in the approved Sign Package only;
... 4) In the event of any graphic changes to the sign, the sign shall come back before
the Planning Commission for their review and approval.
14735
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
'tor On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 719th Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings held on February 13, 1996 was adjourned at 11:38 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
�-t
ATTEST: G11 e ,,1; c�
Jack Engebreon, Chairman
du