HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-11-28 14511
MINUTES OF THE 715th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
'r..
On Tuesday, November 28, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 715th Regular Meeting & 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 25 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson William LaPine Robert Alanskas
James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow Daniel Piercecchi
Patricia Blomberg
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott
Miller, Planner I, 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 become effective seven days after the
resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their
filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-10-1-25 by
Oakwood Healthcare System requesting to rezone property located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany Road and Victor Parkway
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to P.O.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating the
development of subject area will require on-site detention of the storm
water run-off due to the limited capacity of the existing open water
course extending southeasterly from the site. They further state they
do not believe that the Department of Natural Resources will allow any
appreciable alteration of the existing water course which transverses
the site.
14512
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and make whatever
comments you feel are appropriate.
` .• David Ippel: I am Vice President for Ambulatory Care and Community Health for
Oakwood Healthcare System. Oakwood has been working on this area
here, this location, for the last year looking to make sure it met our
qualifications for the development of a facility in the community. We
have a large commitment to our patients. As you know, the Oakwood
Healthcare System up to now has really gone up to the Westland,
Plymouth area, and last July of 1994 we took space in the Horizon
Medical Building on Eight Mile and Haggerty. We have temporarily
located some of our physicians there. We have four family
practitioners and an obstetrician. Our intent was to develop a primary
care facility, which we plan to locate at this location, for about 15
physicians to practice internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and
gynecology. Supporting them would be several suites for surgical and
medical specialists that basically would be referring physicians for the
primary care and the types of ancillary services, the diagnostic
mammography ultrasound radiology services, the cardiology we have
and the physical therapy types of services that support this type of
program. We are looking at the construction of approximately a
50,000 sq. ft. building at this location. As you can see, the 14 acres are
quite extensive for that and we felt it would give us plenty of room to
develop around the appropriate landscaping so it would lend itself well
to what has been done along the parkway. We have talked with Mark
Hubbard from the Victor Group and confirmed with him our interest
and he is willing to work with us so we can proceed along the Parkway
as well. We anticipate we would have about 75 staff located at this
facility, 15 physicians as I mentioned before. The facility would be
open anywhere between 8 and 12 hours a day depending on the types
of specialties, basically the typical office practice, as well as some
Saturday hours. We are not planning on Sunday hours, basically a six
day a week operation. That is pretty much the details of the program
planning. We also have David Miller from Marshall Erdman here, who
can speak to specifics of the building design and types of facilities
issues which you might have.
Mr. LaPine: Could you give me a little background on Oakwood Healthcare
System? Who owns it and is it a non-profit organization?
Mr. Ippel: The Oakwood Health System is a not-for-profit organization. As a
system it is not-for profit. However, it does have some for-profit
subsidiaries. Its main business is the delivery of health care and it does
that in several ways. It owns and operates hospitals, one in Wayne
County and one in Washtenaw County. It also owns a number of
14513
facilities for providing primary care services similar to the one we are
providing here, a medical office with direct patient care services
provided by family care physicians. In addition, it has an occupational
�.. medicine network that encompasses western Wayne, downriver and
into Washtenaw County, an occupational medicine network and a
rehabilitation service network that covers that same geography, and
then as part of its not-for-profit group it has medical buildings and
manages and operates pharmacies and operates home health care
services and some other programs similar to that. So it is a health care
business.
Mr. LaPine: So if Oakwood Healthcare Systems, let's just say, had a contract with
one of the Big Three auto makers, they would have their employees
come to one of these locations for their services?
Mr. Ippel: That is correct. The physicians in our group participate in a variety of
insurance plans, and we are basic providers for those plans, and those
plans are contracted with the auto companies. The only plan we are
not significantly involved with is the HAP program, but the Selectcare,
Bluecare Network, a lot of those type as well as the traditional Blue
Cross programs. We are involved in all of those.
Mr. Alanskas: Could you give me roughly between an 8 to 12 hour day, how many
people would be coming into this facility?
Mr. Ippel: At the most, we are looking at 400.
Mr. Alanskas: I am thinking in regards to traffic. We now have Providence there and
across the street we have the credit union and then with your facility on
Seven Mile Road, I am wondering how much traffic we are going to
have. I don't have a feeling as to parking here yet. Do you know how
many parking spaces they are going to have John yet? I realize this is
only a rezoning petition.
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Ippel: Our commitment with the size and the amount of land we are acquiring
would allow us to have adequate parking to meet the existing
regulations.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, do I understand this not-for-profit organization, which I
don't know what the value of it was, would indicate that the taxable
revenue would be 0 to the City for this facility. Is that correct?
14514
Mr. Engebretson: I am not sure how that works. I am aware there are not-for-profit
organizations operating within the community that do pay taxes on
some or all of their facilities.
tir..
Mr. Ippel: Our experience is the same in that there is a certain portion of our
buildings that tend to lend themselves to the not-for-profit side and
some that lend themselves toward the taxable side. We have not yet, at
this point, come up with a total percentage that we feel that we would
want to share with Mr. Nagy initially and then with the Council in
terms of what that would be. Our experience is yes in our medical
office buildings a portion that is not devoted to the ambulatory care is
taxable. We don't have an exact number yet.
Mr. Piercecchi: You stated sir that you have other facilities that are similar to this.
Correct?
Mr. Ippel: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is the percentage at those?
Mr. Ippel: They vary.
Mr. Piercecchi: Let's say this particular building, which is going to be 50,000 sq. ft.,
what would be the value of this building if it were taxable? What is the
,tka.- value of this property? You have your plans I am sure. You must have
some idea of what it cost and what it would be worth. What kind of
numbers are we talking about?
Mr. Ippel: The total building value is approximately $100 a square foot so we are
talking $5,000,000.
Mr. Morrow: Did the petitioner furnish anything as it relates to a site plan or an idea?
You mentioned someone here could tell us how many stories we are
talking about. Right now, essentially what I am looking for is how high
is the office going to be as it relates to the surrounding residential area,
again realizing this is just a zoning petition. If you would care to share
that with us, we would certainly be interested in getting a little bit of
insight as to what you intend on doing.
Mr. Ippel: Could I ask David Miller to address that? I think he is better able to.
David Miller: I am Senior Project Director for Marshall Erdman& Associates, Inc.
We are a design/build firm out of Wisconsin that specializes only in the
design and development of out-patient facilities such as this. We have
over 40 years of experience in this area. We have been retained by
14515
Oakwood to help them in the planning and potentially the design and
development of the project. We are anticipating about a 50,000 sq. ft.
building. With that size I would assume about a three-story building,
Niew the footprints being in an area of 15,000 to 18,000 sq. ft. This
particular site interested us for a variety of reasons. Number one,
Oakwood desires to have ambulatory care services within communities.
It is the direction health care is going to really provide primary care to
their patient base on a convenient basis. This location has good
visibility being at the intersection of Victor Parkway and Seven Mile.
The corner allows for good access to the site itself, which can help
alleviate the potential for bottlenecking with auto traffic. You have the
lighted intersection at Victor Parkway that allows for easy access to
their property for eastbound traffic on Seven Mile Road and with the
westbound traffic on Seven Mile either access from Seven Mile itself
or, again, turning into Victor Parkway. We haven't gone into a
detailed site plan as of yet, and there is a stream or creek that is not
shown on this overhead to the extent it runs from about the northwest
corner of the property, diagonal almost 45 degrees to the southeast
corner. It is our intent to work around that forest. It is a wetland area.
We would like to have the building probably situated south of the creek
so it would be between Seven Mile and the creek itself, allowing for
some parking towards the front of the building as well as towards the
rear, which would be utilized more for staff purposes than patients.
Again, with utilization of access drives both at Seven Mile and Victor
`r.. Parkway, it allows for a good traffic flow onto and off of the site and it
eliminates the possibility of everything coming and going at one access
point. We have looked at the parking requirements that the City of
Livonia has. This site would more than adequately provide for that.
Beyond that, we really have not gotten into the design side of the
project as of yet. We would be coming back to you with site plan
review which would get into that detail.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. You have satisfied me at least at this junction.
One of the things I have to consider as an advisory Planning
Commissioner is I realize this agrees with the Future Land Use Plan but
since that was adopted a lot of office has been left undeveloped in that
area. Subsequently we also had a number of health care people move
into the area. We mentioned Providence, and the University of
Michigan facility where I think you have some temporary offices. St.
Mary's has been expanding. We like to have a mix of uses in the
community, and if we feel we are well served by office or by health
care, we are certainly shrinking in areas where we can build homes.
When everything else is served, we like to think it matches some of the
homes around there. This is one of the things I have to consider as we
go along with this process.
14516
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy, how does this projected building size
compare to the facility across the street, approximately?
Mr. Nagy: It is less. Across the street is a four-story building with 68,000 sq. ft.
with 17 acres. This is approximately 50,000 sq. ft. with three levels
and 14 acres so it is little bit less in size.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this proposed rezoning change.
Colleen Watson: I live on the corner of Bethany and Northland and I have lived there for
over a year. I live there with my husband and we have a 3 1/2 month
old son. We looked for a house for about 15 months and we finally
chose this house instead of going into a subdivision because of it being
very private back there. There are lots of trees. It is a quiet
neighborhood and at night time it is a dark, country-like setting, and
that is what made us buy a house there. Since we have lived there just
a short time, not even a year and a half, they have now decided to build
a bank on one corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh. They are in the
process of putting up the Providence Center, which is a huge building.
There are two restaurants that are now over at Victor Parkway, and I
believe they are going to construct some more things over there. If this
office is built on that corner, I am concerned about if there is going to
be any type of a wall that is going to be back there so that these people
`41m. that are going to be parking in this parking lot aren't going to have
access to our backyards. I am concerned about the noise level. I am
also concerned that people are going to cut down Northland and
Bethany to get a quicker route into this office complex because many
times Seven and Newburgh is very congested, and that is not even with
these two things on the corner open yet. I am concerned about being
able to get into my own house and not have to be caught in traffic
trying to get there. Another thing I am concerned about is if there are
going to be lights. Right now the Providence Health Center, I see there
are several lights that are going to be on, I am assuming 24 hours a day.
I really like the darkness back there and I am concerned if these lights
are going to be shining in my house at night. I am also concerned if
there is any traffic, it is going to come down our side street. We don't
have sidewalks back there. Our children play and ride their bikes in the
street. I am very concerned about traffic coming down those roads
because I have been there before when I have seen a traffic jam at
Seven Mile and Newburgh. People do come down, and there is no
outlet off Northland so they have to come down Northland and come
down Bethany and I don't want that extra traffic in our neighborhood.
That is all I have to say. Thank you very much.
14517
Matt Glover, 37745 Northland: I also own 37793 Northland and my partner owns 37796
Northland. Those are two lots at the end of Northland that we are
building homes on currently and I just moved into mine at 37745. In
`" the process during the summer building my home, coming to Seven
Mile and Newburgh, I can't imagine another building in that area with
primary care facilities. The corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh during
the rush hours takes 10 to 15 minutes to get through the light. You sit
and wait many lights. The other problem, when I did take Seven Mile
up the highway I saw in the mornings backups, and at night coming
back to the site backups. Besides the fact that we have a number of
residents coring the area I guess in the middle there, you have what
would be a site with a stream running through it plus a number of other
trees and areas like that that I would suspect that the DNR wouldn't
allow some of the building that might happen in the area. I am just
making a guess at it but another three-story building in the area is going
to drop our property values, I can see that for one thing, and I cannot
see with the number of people going in and out of there how Victor
Parkway is going to have another driveway going to it because I have
been to Victor Parkway during lunch time, eating at one of those
restaurants there, and there are a number of people coming out of there
too. This area seems to be bottlenecked with traffic and I can't imagine
another large building being in that area. I am opposed to it and I
know the person I am building for on Northland is opposed to it and
my partner is also.
v`,
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask the petitioner have you looked at acquiring that
small 50'x100' parcel that juts into the area under petition here?
Mr. Ippel: We are in discussions with that individual at this time. It wasn't
essential to the development and that is why we want to proceed
without it.
Mr. Engebretson: In your vision of what you might do with this property if the zoning
change were successful, that wouldn't bother you to have that little
section?
Mr. Ippel: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: If you indicated it, I missed it. Do you currently own the property or
do you have some type of contingency?
Mr. Ippel: We do not own it at this time.
14518
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-1-25 closed.
`o. Mr. McCann: I would like to make a tabling resolution. I would like to see
information provided by the staff to us regarding the number of these
type of facilities already present in Livonia, the distribution around the
City, and I would like to look at the overall plan for that area in greater
detail. We have a new administration coming and a new Council, and I
think it would be in the best interest to have time for this to move
along. Therefore I am recommending a January 30 date, which is a
Regular Meeting.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-228-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on November 28, 1995 on Petition 95-10-1-25 by
Oakwood Healthcare System requesting to rezone property located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany Road and Victor Parkway
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to P.O., the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-10-1-25 until the
Regular Meeting of January 30, 1996.
'`ow 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. Engebretson: I would just like to say to the residents that spoke that I live closer to
that intersection at Seven Mile and Newburgh than either one of you. I
am very familiar with some of the concerns that you expressed there. I
would want to say to you that while it is not appropriate for us to get
into the details of discussing the way in which we were to minimize the
impact of projects like this on existing neighborhoods during this
process, that those concerns that you raised, I recognize as being valid
concerns and if this zoning change is successful, you can be sure that
when we go through the site plan approval process both at here and at
the City Council level that those concerns will be looked into in great
detail. So the fact that we didn't respond to the particular issues that
you raised here tonight, don't interpret that as our being disinterested
and that we did not pay attention to what you had to say.
14519
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-10-2-29 by
`tawD & S Delivery Service requesting waiver use approval for outdoor parking
of delivery vehicles on property located on the south side of Schoolcraft
Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 27.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received letters from the Traffic Bureau and the Fire Marshal stating
their offices have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a
letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies
or problems were found. 1. There are currently 3 tenants in this
building. When D & S Delivery Service occupies this building, any
additional tenants will also require a zoning compliance permit. 2. The
plan indicates they have 15 employees. This would require 15 parking
spaces in addition to the 8 parking spaces provided for truck parking.
Only 8 employee parking spaces are provided. One parking space is
required to meet the barrier free requirements. 3. Section 16.11(B)(1)
requires that a fence enclose the lot area except for the front yard. The
site plan does not indicate that a fence would be provided. 4. The rear
*olla, yard is weed infested, has numerous unlicensed vehicles, miscellaneous
construction materials and debris. The owner has stated these
conditions will be corrected.
We have also received a letter from John Gabrys, owner of John's
Truck-N-Auto Repair stating their company presently occupies the
southwest corner of the premises at 32925 Schoolcraft. They state
they are in the process of relocating their business and intend to be
completely moved within sixty days. It is their intention to remove all
vehicles from the rear of the lot within that time.
We have also received a letter from D&S Delivery Service stating: We
currently occupy the premises along with Lakewood Parts &
Equipment and John's Truck& Auto Repair. Lakewood Parts &
Equipment is currently in the process of applying for a zoning
compliance permit. John's Truck& Auto Repair will be vacating the
premises within sixty days. All vehicles in the rear yard belong to them.
These vehicles will be removed within sixty days also. The rear yard is
weed infested and due to the inclement weather, it is our intention to
have it completely cleaned once winter has ended. We have removed
more of the miscellaneous construction materials and debris in the rear
yard and will have it completed shortly. We understand there is a
14520
requirement for the rear yard to be fenced. It is in our best interest to
accomplish this and it is in our future plans. However, we would like
to have this requirement waived at this time.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and add whatever comments
you feel are appropriate.
Dale Shea, 32925 Schoolcraft: I currently live in Westland. I am President of D & S
Delivery Service. To give you a brief history, I started in Livonia 13
years ago with a small vehicle and myself, and have grown. We are
currently in Plymouth in the Plymouth Industrial Center. We are there
with about 50 other companies. We sought to have our own identity.
We have grown in the warehousing and distribution end of it also. The
building will fit our needs perfect with a little bit of room to expand.
The delivery vehicles, the oldest vehicle is an '94 vehicle which has
been completely rebuilt inside and out. The rest of them are all '90
vehicles. They are small trucks ranging in size from 14 foot on up to,
we have one tractor/trailer. All the vehicles, to enhance our identify,
are all color coordinated. They are all white vehicles. They are lettered
professionally. It says D & S Delivery Service on them. They are very
well maintained. They are washed by a professional washing company
on a bi-weekly basis. Currently, in the back of there, between the City
land there and the building, the tenants of the building, John's Truck
Repair in particular, is allowed to park in excess of 50 to 60 vehicles
**"" there, and he does not have the proper permits. He is relocating out of
there. Fifty percent of the vehicles have been removed from the yard.
The balance of the vehicles, he is moving them out of there one at a
time. I have been in contact with the gentleman on a daily basis. I do
believe the people on either side of the parking area there will be quite
pleased when that is cleaned up. The weeds have grown around the
vehicles that have sat there, and our intention is to clean the weeds up.
We will have to wait until springtime to do that. We will probably need
that area back there just to turn the vehicles around. I think the people
on either side of us will be pleased with seeing a nice fleet of small,
uniform, vehicles there rather than what is there now. The other
company that is there, Lakewood Auto Parts, occupies the northwest
corner of the building, approximately 6400 sq. ft. They have been
instructed and already taken action and applied for proper occupancy
permits and everything else they need to do, and my company, being a
delivery service, will occupy the rest of the building.
Mr. LaPine: I was under the impression that you were going to take the whole
building. That is not true? There will be one other tenant?
14521
Mr. Shea: There is room for them. The building is a little bit more than we need
at this point. I have already spoken with them about maybe hanging on
there for six months or a year and help us pay the rent. They do fit in
very well with what we are doing. They happen to sell the parts that
would fit on our trucks. They don't require anything on the outside.
Everything is on the inside, and I thought it would work out nice so we
could actually grow into the building.
Mr. LaPine: What you are telling me is you are buying the whole parcel and you are
going to occupy the complete building except for approximately 6400
sq. ft.?
Mr. Shea: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: Second question, are all of your deliveries, local deliveries?
Mr. Shea: Within a 100 mile radius.
Mr. LaPine: In this building, are you going to have storage in there too?
Mr. Shea: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: What kind of storage, auto parts?
Mr. Shea: Indirectly yes. There are a lot of times our customers will require us to
pick up different types of freight and if it is on a Friday and not
delivered until Monday, we will warehouse it. I also have a couple of
other customers who are basically salesmen and they don't have the
time to spend handling the warehousing and the delivery end of it and
we do it for them. They will actually fax over their releases to us and
we will pull their material from stock, load it on our delivery vehicles
and deliver it for them.
Mr. LaPine: Is there going to be any semi's coming in with merchandise to store in
this warehouse?
Mr. Shea: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Now often will that happen:
Mr. Shea: Right now we currently receive approximately three semi's a week but
a lot of times they are only dropping off one or two pallets or a half
dozen pallets.
Mr. LaPine: Where would they load it, at the rear of the building?
14522
Mr. Shea: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: Is there a dock there? We went out to field check it and we couldn't
find the building so I am just trying to get some information here. Is
there a dock in the rear of the building?
Mr. Shea: We submitted plans for your approval to have two truck wells installed
in the rear of the building.
Mr. LaPine: So basically in the morning you have trucks coming in there picking up
merchandise and then they return at night and they leave the trucks
there overnight. Is that correct?
Mr. Shea: Correct.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, your facility on Eckles, that is not the facility where they store
campers and RV units, and popcorn machines for people?
Mr. Shea: No, right down the street from them.
Mr. Alanskas: You would not be storing that type of things in Livonia?
Mr. Shea: No the only thing we would be storing is our own vehicles.
Noir
Mr. Engebretson: Do you plan on extending that parking lot deeper than it presently
exists now, the paved portion?
Mr. Shea: No. The section in the back where the weeds are we would like to get
that cleaned up and possibly do something with that. If we do intend to
put the docks in the back of the building, we would have to pave a little
bit of the section on the right there but 3/4th of the lot in back is paved.
Mr. Engebretson: It looks like a junkyard, and I understand it is not your doing, and I
appreciate the fact that you have made commitments to clean it up.
Apparently there has been a lot of improvement made already. There is
significant additional improvement to be made, and I am sure your
neighbors will welcome your arrival, particularly as you clean the place
up and park a uniform fleet of vehicles out there. Would you be able to
use the unpaved portion of the parking area back there without paving
it with at least rock or gravel or something?
Mr. Shea: I believe if I were to clean up the weeds back there and put down some
type of gravel, I wouldn't drive my trucks back there. The vehicles that
are back there and have been back there, look like they have been there
14523
for a long time, and who knows what is stuck down in the ground back
there. At this time, no, but if we got that all cleaned up, I wouldn't
mind looking into that possibility.
Mr. Engebretson: There are some interesting piles of materials back there, and I would
hope you wouldn't wait until spring to deal with those.
Mr. Shea: We have already gotten rid of some this weekend.
Mr. Engebretson: Since Monday?
Mr. Shea: I think if you went and looked at it you would notice a big difference.
Mr. Engebretson: The last question is what exactly do you deliver?
Mr. Shea: I believe in this town everything is automotive related either directly or
indirectly but we are basically a same-day delivery service from Point A
to Point B. If you had some documents, or small packages or a pallet
of basic material, we would have the capabilities of getting it over to
say Warren, Michigan on the same-day type of basis.
Mr. Engebretson: But in general you would go to a client's facility and put their material
in your vehicle and take it to the point of delivery, not necessarily come
through your facility?
`r..,
Mr. Shea: Correct. The stuff that comes through our facility is probably only
about 10%.
Mr. Piercecchi: There seems to be one area where you were short. Do you plan on
addressing the parking?
Mr. Shane: They submitted a revised plan. They now meet the ordinance.
Mr. Piercecchi: The petitioner requested the waiving of the fence enclosure. That can
only be done sir by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This body cannot do
that.
Mr. Shea: The fence issue was actually raised a year ago when I initially looked at
the property. My biggest concern was the City land in the back. The
first thing I noticed was a couple of motor bike trails coming in and out
of there, and I was concerned about that. It is definitely something we
would like to do. I don't think financially we would be capable of
doing that at this point but I will sleep better when we get that fence
up.
14524
Mr. Morrow: That is where I was coming from when you said he wanted to get the
fence waived. I perceive that you want to get it delayed as opposed to
waived. Is that what you are telling us?
`,
Mr. Shea: Yes we have run into a couple of things. The dock is our main concern
at this point and once we get all our ducks in a row, that will definitely
fall in and become a priority for us. I just can't say when that will be.
Mr. Morrow: I guess what I want to do is pursue that a little bit to find out from the
Chairman and the staff if there is any way through our resolution that
the fence is not waived but delayed within a certain time frame? It
would be okayed by the petitioner as well as meeting our time frame.
Is that possible without going through the waiver procedure?
Mr. Nagy: The Zoning Ordinance allows a two-year requirement to pave the
parking lot, and I think the fence would be an appropriate condition of
paving the parking lot. That can be extended no more than two years.
Mr. Morrow: Would that meet the petitioner's time frame if you are going to be
required to improve the parking?
Mr. Shea: I believe that would work.
Mr. Morrow: In that way you don't have to go through the waiver procedure. You
just have to incorporate it within a two-year time frame.
Mr. Shea: I wasn't aware of the paving the parking lot requirement.
Mr. Morrow: John, you might want to elaborate on that.
Mr. Nagy: The Zoning Ordinance does require that the parking lot be hard
surfaced with either concrete or a bituminous material within a two-
year period.
Mr. Morrow: Is that the entire rear yard?
Mr. Nagy: The actual area used for parking of vehicles.
Mr. Shea: That is all cement.
Mr. Morrow: So that is not a problem
Mr. Shea: The area we have on our plan where we are going to park our vehicles
is cement.
14525
Mr. Morrow: So it is approved and you meet the parking requirement.
Mr. Shea: Once we get our docks installed, it would be feasible at that point to
'taw move the fence into priority.
Mr. Morrow: So we don't have to waive it. We can put it within a two-year period?
Mr. Shea: Three would be nicer.
Mr. Morrow: I think we are only allowed two.
Mr. Shea: I can work with two.
Mr. Engebretson: As your business prospers you will need more parking back there and
you will need to put some more pavement down.
Mr. LaPine: I think you indicated there is a motor bike trail back there, so you
would probably want to get the fence up to keep them off of your
property because you don't know what might happen to your vehicles.
Mr. Shea: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: I understand you have priorities right now. The dock is probably the
most important thing right now. I think a two-year period you can
't,`, handle it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-2-29 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-229-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on November 28, 1995 on Petition 95-10-2-29 by
D & S Delivery Service requesting waiver use approval for outdoor parking
of delivery vehicles on property located on the south side of Schoolcraft
Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 95-10-2-29 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 received on 10-23-95
prepared by David L. Mielock Associates Inc., Architects, which is
hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and
14526
2) That the site shall be free of weeds, unlicensed vehicles, and
miscellaneous construction materials and debris as described in a
letter dated October 31, 1995 from the Inspection Department prior
`ft. to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
3) That within two years from the date of this approval a fence shall be
erected as required by Section 16.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards as set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06
of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
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.
'ti.. 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 95-10-2-30 by
Jean G. Newell requesting waiver use approval to operate a dance studio
within an existing building located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Roycroft and Rayburn in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal
stating their offices have no objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have
received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following
deficiencies or problems were noted: 1. Parking area needs minor repair
and re-striping. 2. Barrier free guidelines dictate that at least one
barrier free parking space be provided with ramped access to the
building's sidewalk.
14527
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us why you are
making this request.
Jean Newell, 35904 Lyndon: I have been a resident of Livonia for 34 years. I have also
taught dancing in Livonia for 34 years. We are the permanent resident
ballet company for the City of Livonia, which was given to us by
Mayor Bennett, and we want to move to a different locale. That is all I
can tell you unless you have some questions you want to ask me.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the maximum number of children or students you have at one
time?
Ms. Newell: We value ourselves that we cater to a very small select clientele. Our
classes never exceed 10 to 12 in a class. Most of the children are
dropped off and picked up.
Mr. Alanskas: How many classes do you have going at one time?
Ms. Newell: We will probably have two studios but one will probably be for private
classes and the other would for a regular class. Mostly our classes at
this time, we are running mostly 8 in a class because we believe in
individual attention and this is the reason. If you wish to learn to
dance, you come to us. If you want to have fun, you go elsewhere.
Mr. Alanskas: Do they dance to music or records?
Ms. Newell: We dance to music, records.
Mr. Alanskas: How is the noise level?
Ms. Newell: We keep our ballet music at a very easy level. As a matter of fact,
where we are now, we have no complaints at all.
Mr. Morrow: I guess where we are coming from, do you perceive any type of a
parking problem on that site? Do you feel you can comfortably handle
the parking?
Ms. Newell: Yes I think we can comfortably do that because there is the hearing aid
company that is next door to us. They will be leaving when we are
coming in. We don't start until 4:00 - 4:30 in the afternoon. They
close at 5:00. There are two teachers that will be teaching at the same
time. We overlap each other so that one is usually leaving when one is
coming in. As I said, most of the children are dropped off except for
our little babies, and then we only take six babies at a time because that
is all we can handle, three year olds.
14528
Mr. Morrow: Do you own the building?
Ms. Newell: No I don't. I rent it.
Mr. Morrow: This doesn't really pertain to you but it is more on the subject of
parking, the restriping of that parking lot.
Ms. Newell: My landlord said she is willing to take care of anything that has to be
done on the outside.
Mr. Morrow: We would like to see some patching and some striping because we do
anticipate a little bit of traffic and parking problems so it is a little better
to have it so we maximize the site.
Ms. Newell: My landlord said she would take care of all the outside work that had
to be done. We are taking care of the inside.
Mr. Morrow: Just one other thing, if you would just mention that we would like to
have it double striped and meet the ordinance, which is 10'x20' double
striped.
Ms. Newell: All right, I will tell her. No problem.
— Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Morrow really covered the two areas I
wanted to bring up, the double stripping and the improvement of the
parking lot. Bob mentioned something about the noise. There is a wall
directly behind that building. I think the noise is the least of our
worries, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if we can put it in the motion,
inasmuch as the petitioner does not own this particular building,
reference to the parking lot and the striping.
Mr. Engebretson: Yes I think we can.
Mr. LaPine: John, did I understand you to say there has to be one barrier-free space
plus there has to be a ramp so that would be the landlord that would be
required to do that?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Ms. Newell: Would the ramp also have to go to the hearing aid building as well?
Mr. Nagy: The ramp would access either of the doors that would be available to
that building.
14529
Mr. LaPine: We realize you might not need it but it is required under the ordinance.
Ms. Newell: All right.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-2-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-230-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-10-2-
30 by Jean G. Newell requesting waiver use approval to operate a dance
studio within an existing building located on the west side of Farmington
Road between Roycroft and Rayburn in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 95-10-2-30 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of
students permitted in the building at any one time of not to exceed 20 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 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
�., 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use;
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area; and
4) That the proposed use will operate primarily in the evening hours
which will insure that the site will not be overburdened with traffic.
and subject to the following condition:
1) That the parking lot shall be repaved and restriped adding one
barrier free parking space and a ramped access to the building's
sidewalk shall be constructed before an Occupancy Permit is issued.
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.
14530
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-10-3-3 by
St. Maurice Catholic Church requesting to vacate a portion of the Lyndon
Avenue right-of-way located between Brookfield and Loveland Avenues in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 22.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
there are no City maintained utilities within the area to be vacated
therefore their office has no objections to this vacating petition. We
have also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they have no
facilities on the south side of Lyndon Avenue at the location of the
proposed vacation therefore they have no objection to the proposal by
St. Maurice Catholic Church.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Father John Maierle: I am Pastor of St. Maurice Parish. Our parish, like many of the
Catholic parishes in Livonia, has continued to grow in the community
since its establishment in the early '60s and the parish has been
considering the renovation of its current worship space for the last two
years and feels that a new worship space on the north side of the
existing building is our best option. In order to maximize the use of
that existing building and keep the new worship space within the City's
50 foot setback, we are requesting the right-of-way parallel to the
existing Lyndon Avenue.
Mr. Engebretson: I am happy to tell you that the growth that you are enjoying seems to
be something universal in all faiths in Livonia these days. We have seen
a lot of activity with expansion of churches. We will go to the audience
to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-3-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-231-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-10-3-3
by St. Maurice Catholic Church requesting to vacate a portion of the Lyndon
Avenue right-of-way located between Brookfield and Loveland Avenues in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22, the City Planning Commission does hereby
r..
14531
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-10-3-3 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed vacating will provide for the private use of the subject
property; and
2) That the subject property is no longer needed for public access purposes.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances.
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 95-10-3-4 by
Richard Blumenstein, Dover Development, requesting to vacate a portion of
a 12' easement located on Lot 13, Paragon Technology Park Subdivision,
located on Glendale Avenue, north of the CSX Railroad and west of
Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
N`"'' Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
there are no City maintained utilities within the subject easement area
and therefore their office has no objections to the vacating petition.
We have also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they
have no facilities and has no plan to install facilities in the existing 12'
private utility easement therefore they have no objection to the
easement being vacated in part or whole and release any rights they
may have. We also have received a letter from Detroit Edison stating
they have no objection to the proposed vacation as they have no
equipment involved.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here.
Richard Blumenstein: I am with Dover Development. Paragon Technology Park is a light
industrial subdivision that was developed by my father about 10-15
years ago. It is part of a 130,000-foot light industrial building program
that we embarked upon this summer. We were trying to put a building
on lot 13 and in the site planning process what we discovered was that
there was this unused easement which was uncharacteristically not
running along the property line. We then contacted all of the utilities
and the City Engineering Department and determined that this
14532
easement was really an anomaly and nobody had any use for it nor did
they figure out why it was placed on the property where it was. So I
got the letters Mr. Nagy read to you indicating everyone would be
willing to vacate or to move the easement if that would be necessary.
Mr. Engebretson: It probably seemed like a good idea at the time. I am referring to the
fact that the easement exists. It probably occurred to someone that it
might make sense.
Mr. Blumenstein: Actually the Detroit Edison engineer thought at one time they were
thinking of looping the power within that subdivision but at this time he
looked at it and determined there was no need to do so.
Mr. Engebretson: It appears that it is not needed by any utilities.
Mr. Blumenstein: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: Immediately to the north is a similar type of easement.
Mr. Blumenstein: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: Did you also pursue that information? Does that fall in the same
category as the one on the site that you want to develop?
�,,.. Mr. Blumenstein: No those easements are actually in use or planned to be used.
Mr. Morrow: So you did look into it?
Mr. Blumenstein: Correct because there are either existing electrical or telephone utilities
there or they might need to be used for future use.
Mr. Morrow: So in this particular case the parcel to the south, it did make sense to
put easements in that area?
Mr. Blumenstein: You mean lot 12?
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
Mr. Blumenstein: Actually what happened the way that lot 12 is laid out because it is a
wider parcel, the developer of that parcel was able to put an efficient
building on the parcel without interfering with the easement so he really
didn't have cause to address it.
14533
Mr. Morrow: My thing was if it is not being used, perhaps on our own motion we
could get rid of that easement if it is not needed. That is where I am
coming from.
New
Mr. Blumenstein: I believe the utilities will look at that in the same way they looked at the
one on lot 13.
Mr. Morrow: That is what I wanted to know. So we will pursue that at a different
time if we think it is productive to get that easement off there if it is not
a benefit to anybody.
Mr. Blumenstein: If need be, I could also contact the same people and have them look at
that issue and send letters.
Mr. Morrow: We will be in touch with the staff and we will see where we will go
from here. That is what I wanted to find out.
Mr. Blumenstein: As it happens, I was in contact with that developer and we discussed it
and because his building was already in, we decided just to leave it
alone, but you are right it really does serve no purpose.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-3-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-232-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning on November 28, 1995 on Petition 95-10-3-4 by Richard
Blumenstein, Dover Development, requesting to vacate a portion of a 12'
easement located on Lot 13, Paragon Technology Park Subdivision,
located on Glendale Avenue, north of the CSX Railroad and west of
Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
95-10-3-4 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the subject area is no longer needed to serve any public
purpose or to protect any public utilities; and
2) That the subject property can better be utilized for private building
purposes.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code
of Ordinances.
14534
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 Parkside Estates Subdivision (revised and expanded) proposed
to be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Department of Parks and Recreation
stating at this time they find no discrepancies or problems with this plan
as submitted. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal and
Traffic Bureau stating they have no objection to this plan. Also in our
file is a letter from the Engineering Department stating the following
comments are offered relative to this proposal. 1. A passing lane will
be required on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail opposite the proposed
street intersection. The City of Westland will become involved in the
review of the proposed intersection as well as the above passing lane.
2. The storm sewer outlet for the site will be the Middle Rouge River
within the Hines Park area north of the subdivision. This outlet will
require the approval of the Wayne County. The above agency may
require that an on-site sedimentation/detention pond be constructed.
``► 3. The proposed street name of"Parkside Court" should be reviewed
by the Public Safety Department as it relates to any ambiguity with
other street names in the City. 4. A water main loop will be required to
interconnect the two existing dead-end water mains in Ann Arbor Trail
adjacent to the proposed subdivision. They finish by saying their office
has no objections to the proposed plat subject to the above comments.
Mr. Engebretson: I see Mr. Soave in the audience. Would you like to come forward.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What we propose is a 31 lot subdivision. It would consist
of concrete roads and sidewalks. The homes would be three and four
bedroom homes. They would range in price from $175,000 to
$200,000. I will answer your questions.
Mr. Engebretson: How wide will the streets be Mr. Soave?
Mr. Soave: 60 feet.
Mr. Engebretson: How wide will the entrance be?
Mr. Soave: Ninety foot radius. Is that right John?
14535
Mr. Nagy: Ninety foot at the right-of-way line of Ann Arbor Trail to provide a
small boulevard section, an entry island to divide the traffic at the
`4141. entrance and that will be where they will place the subdivision entrance
marker as well, then it will taper down to the standard 60 foot
requirement for interior streets.
Mr. Engebretson: Then will that eliminate any concern about a single point of ingress and
egress for this area?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: What did Mr. Clark's comment relative to a passing lane on the
Westland side of the road, what were they addressing there? Wouldn't
it make sense that the passing lane be on this side?
Mr. Nagy: I think what they are saying is that, it is a two lane road, and eastbound
traffic on Ann Arbor Trail as it stops to make the left hand turn into the
site would likely block other traffic behind it because it is one lane. In
order to allow that traffic to bypass around that car waiting to make the
left hand turn into the proposed subdivision, we should provide for this
passing lane so they can continue on in an easterly direction and that
occurs within the Westland side.
`,, Mr. Engebretson: The entrance appears to be right at the point where the two cities come
together and would it be your impression John there is room there to
accommodate that passing lane?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have the full right-of-way in front of this site and even though
we don't have the full 60 feet on the Westland side, there is sufficient
to add 12 feet for a passing lane.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval for
Parkside Estates closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-233-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on November 28, 1995 on Preliminary Plat
Approval for Parkside Estates Subdivision (revised and expanded)
proposed to be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and
Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the
14536
Preliminary Plat for Parkside Estates Subdivision be approved subject to
the following conditions:
rr.. 1) That a landscape plan for the greenbelt easement to be provided on
lots 1 and 31 and an entrance marker plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for its approval prior to approval of the Final
Plat.
for the following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all of the
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations;
2) That no objection to approval of the Preliminary Plat have been
received from any City Department; and
3) That the Preliminary Plat represents a good land use solution to the
development of the subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice fo 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
*ow Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Soave: My option on the property is running out. I was wondering if it was
possible to get the 7-day waiting period waived so I can get in front of
City Council.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-234-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with
the Preliminary Plat approval for Parkside Estates Subdivision(revised and
expanded) proposed to be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark
and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33.
14537
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
n,. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a request by Kaftan
Enterprises to modify a condition of Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use
approval in connection with the construction of a single family cluster development
located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise
Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled at our last regular meeting. Technically I need a
motion to remove it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-235-95 RESOLVED that, the request by Kaftan Enterprises to modify a condition of
Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use approval in connection with
the construction of a single family cluster development located on the north
side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, be taken from the table.
*,`, Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Jeffrey Kaftan: I am with Kaftan Enterprises. We own the parcel at 29540 Six Mile
Road, known as Brookview Park, a/k/a Mathieu's Acres. I am here
tonight to discuss the requirement in our site condominium which
requires 50% coverage of face brick on the elevations. I am with
Kaftan Enterprises as I mentioned. We have been in business for 25
years, which I discussed with you last week. We built subdivisions and
developments for those years in the southeastern Michigan area, and
we are trying to do the same on Six Mile Road. My reasons, which I
will reiterate to you this week, for wanting to waiver this requirement
or a partial waiver of this requirement, is number one, I hope you have
had a chance to see the site and to see our other subdivision we have
done. On the Six Mile site to the east of us is a commercial building.
We believe our site is compatible with the surrounding area and
harmonious with the surrounding areas which we think is important to
the City of Livonia. Like I said to the east of us is a commercial
building. To the south of us is four-lane Six Mile Road and just south
14538
of that is a strip shopping center, a church, and a commercial office
building. To the west of us, the first 200 feet is a residential house, and
north of that the remaining 400 feet is property owned by the church,
Nom, which they plan on using for future expansion, and to the north of us is
Mr. Garish's Oakcrest Villas, which is a new subdivision that has been
developed but not yet built. In their subdivision they are not required
to put any brick on the houses although I think they are offering it as an
option, which we would be more than willing to do. About a mile
south of us is Bayberry Park, another site condominium. They are just
finishing up. They are in a residential area. They were required to put
brick on the front and anywhere from one foot to three feet along the
sides and rear of the house. To the north of us is Fargo Woods, a
residential development on Merriman, which they are only required to
put brick on the front of the house. Another reason for requesting this
waiver is we believe we should leave it up to the homeowners where
they would like to spend their money. Instead of putting it into brick
they might want to put it into landscaping, sprinklers or maybe into the
interior of their house. In addition, we feel one of the reasons for
requiring brick is to make a more attractive product and we offer many
different elevations. Our site, Heritage Village in Farmington Hills,
these will be the same houses, but we offer many different elevations
we think we can achieve that same attractive, homey type feel without
putting brick along the whole 50% of the house. In addition, some
people may, instead of having brick, want something like fieldstone or
cedar shakes or dryvet, or something other than brick. So we feel we
would like to leave the option up to the homeowner and if they want to
spend the money on brick, we would be more than happy to go along
with that. (He presented elevations) If you have any questions, I will
be happy to answer them.
Mr. Alanskas: What would it cost you to develop it if you put 50%brick on all three
sides?
Mr. Kaftan: Approximately $3,000 more.
Mr. Alanskas: I went up and saw your site in Farmington Hills and they look very
nice but there is so much wave in it that it didn't look that good. Your
pictures look wonderful but when you go and see it in person, it is a
little different aspect. There is hardly any brick at all. Number two, the
surrounding area, most of the homes in the area are all brick and the
complex behind it, the apartment building, that is all brick. It is all
brick. So for the area, most of it is homes with at least 50% or more
brick on all sides of the homes. I can't understand what you are talking
about when you say there are a lot of pieces there that are not brick.
What areas are you actually talking about?
14539
Mr. Kaftan: What I am referring to is to the north of us there is a new subdivision
and there is no requirement to put brick on the house.
Mr. Alanskas: John, did we approve a subdivision without any brick at all?
Mr. Nagy: We approve subdivisions but we don't get into any actual houses
rarely. For instance Parkside Estates, which you just had, we talked
about lot size, road patterns, etc. Other than generally the sizes and the
value of the houses we don't generally get into the brick in a
traditional platted subdivision. We do in cluster. We do with site
condominiums because we are dealing more with the environment, but
with traditional subdivisions we haven't gotten into the design.
Mr. Engebretson: Although there certainly are exceptions to that. I know in a number of
instances, including very recently, we discussed composition of the
homes, brick versus siding at Seven Mile and Newburgh, those major
subdivisions there. They didn't propose to come in with anything less
than what we were looking for but it certainly was discussed. Maybe
not a condition of approval but it was discussed.
Mr. LaPine: Sir, I don't really understand what you are fighting this so hard for, for
$3,000. You say your houses are going to sell for $155,000. So they
are going to sell for $158,000. Have you ever built any houses in
,,41. Livonia before?
Mr. Kaftan: No.
Mr. LaPine: I can guarantee you are going to sell all of your houses in Livonia with
brick on them for $158,000. I have yet to know of any subdivision in
the City of Livonia that hasn't sold. When you bought the property,
did you know there was a requirement of 50% brick?
Mr. Kaftan: I didn't but that is not your concern.
Mr. LaPine: Because I don't really think you would have any problem selling homes
at $158,000. Secondly, I was out looking at your Heritage Village, and
if I had my druthers to have this house or a house with brick, I would
take the brick house. These houses here are very nice houses. I like
your designs but I think it would look a lot nicer, in my estimation, with
the brick on in. If someone comes in and they want fieldstone instead
of brick, I would have no objection to that, but I don't think we are
being unreasonable to ask you for 50% brick. I don't think that is an
unreasonable request.
14540
Mr. Kaftan: Where I am coming from, I would be willing to a partial waiver,
something of that nature, where we would have brick on the front and
sides. On the rear, we are fronting a commercial building. A fence is
ww going to be put up there and there really isn't that much of a benefit
putting brick on the rear of the house.
Mr. LaPine: The homeowner is going to live there after you are gone. I look at that
a little differently. I just think you are making a big issue out of
something. If you were telling me it was going to cost $10,000 for a
home to put on brick, then I might say you have a legitimate argument,
but I don't think $3,000, and that is what I estimated when we went
out a looked at it. I said we are probably only talking about $3,000 to
$4,000 to put brick on these homes because you are saving the cost of
the aluminum siding. One will offset the other. If you are worried that
you are not going to sell these houses, believe me you will sell these
houses.
Mr. Kaftan: We try to come in with an affordable product.
Mr. LaPine: You probably, at $158,000, you are probably the cheapest one in town.
We have houses going up here starting at $250,000, two hundred and
some homes. I don't think you are going to have one problem selling
these homes.
,,` Mr. Morrow: Would you explain to me, you mentioned a fence or a barrier, I was at
the site and I don't recall how your development was put together. Do
we have any type of illustration John?
(Mr. Miller presented the site plan)
Mr. Morrow: You mentioned a fence. How high is that fence. Is it where you abut
the commercial property?
Mr. Kaftan: That is actually an interesting question. There is a six foot fence
starting right here and going the full length of the property. The
commercial building, which was built in 1987 was required to put a
fence in there and they received a waiver until 1991 and then received
an additional waiver until 1998 so actually we are in discussions with
them now about putting a fence up so it is not quite finalized yet. They
plan to put a fence in.
Mr. Morrow: What may or may not happen, I guess I can't be governed by that. I
might have been amenable to having three sides brick and leaving the
rear side not bricked because of the landscaping and the fence but
14541
because we are not sure what is going to happen there, I will drop that
particular thought.
ti"" Mr. Kaftan: A fence will go up there one way or another. I can assure you of that.
Mr. Morrow: So you have a fence there that you just told me you are not sure if it is
going to go up or not.
Mr. Nagy: I think he used the word fence and it should be wall. Commercial
buildings in an office district, under the operation of the zoning
ordinance where you have office zoning abutting single family
residential, you shall have a protective screen wall. That was a
requirement back when it was built in '87 and there was a temporary
variance granted and it was up for renewal and the Zoning Board
granted an extension of that. I believe now, when it is revisited in the
coming years, due to the fact that this property is now planned and
deeded out for single family residential purposes, the Zoning Board will
now conclude that a wall is now required. He is saying that in the
event the unlikely thing would happen that the Zoning Board would
still waive that wall, then he would go ahead and build that fence as
part of the site plan.
Mr. Morrow: So as one commissioner, if you dropped that wall, that would be about
38% assuming you were looking for 25% when we had three walls, I
don't know if I would get any support from my fellow commissioners
but with that wall abutting the commercial, I am amenable, at least as
one commissioner, to having three sides brick and certainly not just the
one wall.
Mr. Piercecchi: The petitioner here did say he would like the front, perhaps, and two
sides. Sir, you are kind of Mickey-Mousing that. If four sides would
be $3,000, you are looking at $750 for that rear, right?
Mr. Kaftan: Actually I was just requesting it for the front.
Mr. Piercecchi: You said the front and two sides. I initially thought that we could go
along with the three sides but I too sir, I can't see for a few dollars and
the adjoining neighborhood that we should grant this waiver.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to continue to batter you here but I do want to make the
point that clearly the brick produces the better product. There is no
question about it. Brick walls don't wave like aluminum siding can.
As Mr. LaPine said if it is going to cost you an extra $3,000. That
adds probably 1 1/2% to the cost of the home and it is highly unlike
that is going to be a deal breaker, not that we are experts in real estate,
`..
14542
perhaps you are, but we have seen homes of this size in this
environment constructed in Livonia and sold out with all the amenities,
with the brick and with the landscaping, etc. So if this request were
denied, I don't think we are hurting you in any way. I think we are
possibly in the long run helping you to have a better product that is
going to be more appealing and, as Mr. LaPine said, you build it and
go. The people that buy it look at it forever, and the extra $1,000 or
$2,000, whatever it is, net to make it a really quality product, I think
that serves the customer, the City and yourself better by putting
together a product that no one can go back and look at and be critical
of, as you have heard some criticism of what you built in Farmington
Hills, although I must say from a distance it is really a very magnificent
site. I think your elevations are very nice. I think you are going to
have a real hot piece of property here, and the sales are going to go in
Livonia whether it is 90%brick, 75% brick or 50% brick. Please don't
get the impression that we are not willing to cooperate with you but
again for a 1% or 1 1/2% incremental cost to make an end product
truly finished, as compared to one that might even look ticky-tacky, to
save that 1% cost,just doesn't seem to make business sense,
particularly from the point of view of the people that are going to live
there. They may be sitting on their patio and if they are looking at
wavy aluminum siding versus a brick siding that adjoins their patio, I
think they are going to be happier with you in the short and long run if
it is brick. The idea here is not to make it difficult to do business in
'to . Livonia. We want you to be successful. This will be a better product
than you had in Farmington Hills. This is the one you will send other
Planning Commissions to as a point of reference as to the type of work
you do.
Mr. Kaftan: I just want to say in defense of the product I have in Heritage Village,
there are approximately 45 homeowners in there and they are very
happy with the product. I haven't heard too many complaints about it.
Mr. Engebretson: I am glad you brought that up because there is no intent here to
indicate that you have done less than a reputable job here. It is just that
you can't do the same kind of work with those kinds of products that
you can with brick. I don't find any fault at all with what you have
done there. I look at my own home, on the second story, and I can see
some things up there that I don't like, but the bricks are right in line.
Every single one of them. In fact, I think we have beaten it to death.
Don't view this as being antagonistic toward you. I think you have
done a wonderful job here.
Mr. McCann: The reason for any requirement at all by the Planning Commission is
because I believe there is a five foot discrepancy in the easement so it
14543
could not be an R-1 subdivision. It had to be a site condo. Is that
correct John?
Nor. Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. McCann: That is why, because of the five foot requirement, we said there were
certain improvements we had to make. I believe in brick. I think it
does add attractiveness to homes. There are many developments in
Livonia that do not have it. One I can think of is the Pulte Home
development where Lincoln School used to be. Those are $200,000
homes. I don't know of any of them that have any brick. I know there
are homes in my subdivision that have recently sold in excess of
$200,000 that are not brick, depending on the style of the home. There
are a number of communities in Livonia that are developments where
they are not brick. I believe, especially when you have a little closer
conditions like these, although the separation of the homes is normal,
brick would help. What I would like to do is make a motion that would
give him 50% on the front and 50% on the sides and allow him to leave
the back free, or a combination of that.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request by Kaftan Enterprises to modify a
condition of Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use approval in
`r.y connection with the construction of a single family cluster development
located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the request by Kaftan
Enterprises, in a letter dated November 9, 1995 for the modification of the
requirement of 50% brick, as stated in the approval resolution of Petition
94-5-2-14, is hereby amended so as to read as follows:
That the front and side elevations shall have at least 25% coverage by full
face brick material or a combination thereof.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think we are missing the point here when we start playing games. The
original plan that was put into place was to give a very attractive house,
half way up all the way around. To go 100% in front and ignore the
sides, is not to get what we really wanted. I would like to offer a
substitute motion as follows:
1) That the petitioner has failed to justify the need of the proposed
modification of the condition of 50% brick, as stated in the
approving resolution of Petition 94-5-2-14;
14544
2) That by approving this request, the City would be setting an
undesirable precedent for future development in the immediate area,
as well as, the City as a whole;
3) That the request would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and
beauty of the neighborhood and could jeopardize the property
values in the area.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. LaPine it was
#11-236-95 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby approve the
request for a substitute resolution in place of the pending resolution in
connection with the request by Kaftan Enterprises to modify a condition of
Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use approval in connection with
the construction of a single family cluster development located on the north
side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 11.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Engebretson
NAYS: Blomberg, McCann, Morrow
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson: The ayes have it and the motion to substitute is adopted. Now we will
vote on the motion to deny.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#11-237-95 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the request by Kaftan Enterprises to modify a
condition of Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use approval in
connection with the construction of a single family cluster development
located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to justify the need of the proposed
modification of the condition of 50%brick, as stated in the
approving resolution of Petition 94-5-2-14;
2) That by approving this request, the City would be setting an
undesirable precedent for future development in the immediate area,
as well as, the City as a whole;
14545
3) That the request would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and
beauty of the neighborhood and could jeopardize the property
values in the area.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Morrow, LaPine, Alanskas, Engebretson
NAYS: Blomberg, McCann
ABSENT: None
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a request by The
Ivanhoe Companies to change the name of the Caliburn Estates Subdivision No. 2
which is to be located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road
and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Please come forward and tell us your reasons
for this request.
Craig Menuck, Curtis Building Company, 29992 Northwestern Hwy., Suite A,
Farmington Hills: Our company is Curtis Building Company, and we
have been active in the Livonia community for a number of years with
`v..r brief absences. Our new partner is Ivanhoe Companies. I believe they
sent a letter on our behalf to request a name change of Caliburn
Estates, which is on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile
Road and Seven Mile Road. The new name is to be Woodbury Park.
We will be co-building with Ivanhoe Companies the same product
alternating sales. If you have seen any of our past developments, I
think you will be pleased with the precedent that we have set in
Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: This is the subdivision I was referring to. My recollection is there is
nothing less than 50%brick anywhere in this subdivision.
Mr. Menuck: Yes it is not considered an affordable subdivision with respect to
others. It is in the upper scale for Livonia. It is a different product
altogether.
Mr. Morrow: There was some talk last week with the other gentleman, and I don't
know if it impacts this site, but he is going to set the standard through
the subdivision to the south as far as the name would be and the
entrance marker.
14546
Mr. Menuck: I believe that will be Phase II. We have no problem with that.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we discussed some ways we could make that all happen.
*..
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-238-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the request by The Ivanhoe Companies to change
the name of the Caliburn Estates Subdivision No 2 which is to be located
on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the name change of the subdivision recorded as Caliburn
Estates No. 2 is hereby approved and shall now be known as
"Woodbury Park" for marketing purposes only;
2) That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet 1 & 2 dated 11/3/95 and
11/10/95 respectively, prepared by Great Oaks Landscaping, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded lawn areas, as described on the approved Landscape
'or. Plans, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Planning Department and thereafter permanently maintained
in a healthy condition;
4) That the Landscape Plan as approved for the greenbelt for the
subdivision known as Woodbury Park shall equally apply for
Caliburn Estates No. 3 Subdivision and this approval shall
supersede the approval as set forth in Planning Commission
Resolution#10-213-95;
5) That any entrance markers proposed for the subdivision known as
Caliburn Estates No. 3 shall come back before the Planning
Commission for their review and approval.
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, pursuant to Council Resolution#482-94, to hold a
public hearing on the question of whether the City-owned property located
ti..
14547
west of Middlebelt, between Five Mile and Puritan, should be rezoned from
PL and RUF to NP.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, could you give us a brief comment as to what this proposal
is, realizing all they are doing is setting a public hearing, but in the
interest of keeping people informed.
Mr. Nagy: The purpose for this is the Planning Commission has determined to
initiate on its own motion a zoning change to consider changing the
existing zoning on this park land from the Public Lands classification to
a more restrictive park usage, that of Nature Preserve, and to in
addition to that incorporate the new lands that the City got in exchange
for some other lands that makes it part of the park, to make it all come
under one uniform zoning classification, Nature Preserve, to protect the
existing trees and foliage that already occurs on that property.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, that was a one-on-one exchange wasn't it so there was
nothing gained or lost by this? It just preserves the intent of the
original layout?
Mr. Engebretson: To a different configuration with open space adjacent to some single
family homes in the area.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
r.. approved, it was
#11-239-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution#482-94, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby
establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not
to rezone the City-owned property located west of Middlebelt, between Five
Mile and Puritan from PL and RUF to NP.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 fo 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 City 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 714th Regular Meeting held on November 14, 1995.
14548
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-240-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 714th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on November 14, 1995 are hereby approved.
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 95-11-8-26 by
Motor City Truck requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58
of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a
parking lot and vehicle display area on property located at 39300 Schoolcraft
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19.
Mr. Miller: This is the Motor City Truck facility. It is located on the north side of
Schoolcraft Road east of Eckles and west of I-96 expressway. They
are proposing to construct a vehicle display in the parking area to the
west of their property. This will provide the existing facility with 45
more parking spaces. They will be able to access the site by a drive off
the existing site and also a drive off Eckles Road. The parking spaces
are at various widths because of the truck sizes. They are also
proposing to construct a greenbelt, 20 foot wide, along the south
property line of this parking lot. That will help buffer this lot from the
...► existing residential house to the south.
Mr. Engebretson: Did the petitioner give us any change to the plan to deal with the height
of those light standards?
Mr. Miller: No he hasn't. On the existing plan there is a note that says the light
fixtures will be mounted on a minimal 26-foot high pole. I mentioned
to the petitioner and I put it in the condition that it is only 20 foot.
Mr. Engebretson: I just wondered if that had been addressed voluntarily. If the petitioner
is here, would you please come forward and tell us your reasons for
this request.
Bill Peters: I am General Manager of Motor City Truck. As I indicated to you last
week at the study session, we are looking to expand into that piece of
property because the whole piece was bought at the same time by Ford
Land Development and as a start up we only needed a portion of it, and
as time has gone by and business has grown, we now need that
additional space to park and display vehicles. It is our intent to do the
same thing with that additional piece of property that we are doing with
the current piece of property. It will be paved and there will be
14549
vehicles parked there. To answer your question about the lights, we
did have a note on there that the light height is not a critical factor in
our overall plan. If you are saying it has to be 20 feet or 18 feet, we
Sow will make it that. That is not an issue with us. Obviously we would
like to have the lights up higher than a truck, which is 13 1/2 feet, but
beyond that, whether it is 15 or 20, is not an issue. There is some
correspondence on the issue and it concerns the right-of-way that is
required there. That road is a dirt road. It is in poor condition. It is
not our intent to use it. Eckles Road is the main entrance or exit to that
property, and for security, if for no other reason, we intend to continue
to use the entrance as it exists, and that exit to Eckles would be an
emergency type of thing. If you had a truck blocking the drive or
something that couldn't be moved, it would allow us to eliminate
vehicles or move vehicles off that property through that side gate. I
had some conversations earlier this afternoon with Gary Clark and
Allen Dickinson from the county, who I guess is his counterpart in the
county, and we talked about the 60 foot width they are requiring at the
corner, and we came to an agreement through that conversation that
they wouldn't require 60 feet back there since it is a dead end road. It
is really no more than a long driveway for two or three people. When
you get done here I think you are going to end up with three parcels on
one side of the road and three on the other side of that road. So they
agreed. The print they gave me shows 33 feet, 66 feet across the street
and 33 feet in the center line. We agreed on 43 feet amongst us, which
'r.► means we then would have to move our fence on the westerly side of
our property back in another ten feet, which doesn't really affect what
we do. The other item that was discussed is, if in fact we are going to
use Eckles Road so infrequently, the county planner inasmuch said you
really shouldn't have to go through a formal driveway request. All you
are going to do is just move trucks on occasions out there. You could
just use the existing fence and put a gate on it to accommodate those
emergency situations. Those changes would have to be required to the
existing plan as we presented it. Aside from that, I don't see there is a
whole lot to change. We did agree in essence to give up that 10 feet to
the county or city, whoever ends up getting that re-deeded to them.
The problem there is that is owned by the Ford Motor Company, so it
is more difficult. We will do that. I have already made a phone call to
be presented to Ford's management to give up that 10 feet. They are
not seeing a problem, but it is not done yet either.
Mr. Alanskas: On the west side of the property you have a brick wall that goes like
five feet and then down to three feet. Was that put up by Ford or the
property owners?
14550
Mr. Peters: That would be one and the same. The property owner in this case is
the Ford Motor Company.
',t" Mr. Alanskas: For the home?
Mr. Peters: The home is a rental piece of property, which is sometimes rented and
sometimes not.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to continue that wall or are you going to fence in your
lot?
Mr. Peters: The plan shows that a short distance from that wall is where we intend
to enter that piece of property from our existing piece of property so
we wouldn't be modifying that wall.
Mr. Morrow: Did you say you were going to be parking new vehicles on this lot or
would it be used trucks in good shape that are for sale?
Mr. Peters: It might be either. There are two schools of thinking amongst my
managers. Some of them say we should be displaying new Ford trucks,
and some of them thing everyone knows we are selling new trucks, it
would be more advantageous to display used trucks. We haven't really
finalized the decision on what would be displayed back there. There is
also the school of thought that says use the existing property for new,
``r" use the additional property for used, and split the lot.
Mr. Morrow: But in no case you will have any trucks in there for maintenance or
repair?
Mr. Peters: It is not our intent to use it as a storage area for junk type of trucks.
Anything that is displayed back there will be for sale,.
Mr. Morrow: I can see why you are trying to expand, everyone can see you have a
congested site now, and I would hope this would open up some of the
site so it doesn't look quite so cluttered.
Mr. Peters: We are going from 45 to 55 employees. That is another ten
automobiles on that lot. We have more people parking for parts and
for service than we originally had and the lot really isn't sufficient. You
have to be there to see when we have 105 Detroit Edison trucks there
at one time. We are parking every place.
Mr. Morrow: Like new car dealers where customers can't find any place to park.
14551
Mr. Peters: As I said the whole piece of property was bought at one time with the
purpose of turning it into a dealership parking area later. From my
point of view, I wish they would have done it at the outset. It would
Nta` have been a lot cheaper for everyone and it would have been done and
over with and we wouldn't be here tonight. We are not planning any
buildings on that piece of property. We are not planning anything
different than what you see. It will just be an extension of what
currently exists.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, I notice on the approval resolution here, it is stated that no
barbed wire shall be permitted on the top of the fence that surrounds
this property. If I remember right,just recently we discussed all the
dealers, and I think the terminology was legally non-conforming. Why
not legally non-conforming here?
Mr. Nagy: We are starting with a clean slate. We have an opportunity with a new
development here to meet the currently adopted ordinances. The site
has not be developed. It is to be developed. Therefore they must
comply with all currently adopted ordinances and rules and regulations
of the City.
Mr. Piercecchi: I approve of that.
Mr. Peters: Our existing property does not have barbed wire. There are only six
foot fences with no barbed wire. When I attended the meeting last
week I was asked that question and I thought we must have barbed
wire on top of the fences. I went back to the dealership after the
meeting and we don't have any barbed wire.
Mr. Piercecchi: Apparently you don't have any theft problems.
Mr. Peters: We do have theft problems. It is a major issue. We have lost, on two
or three occasions, 60 to 70 tires and wheels that are valued at $400 to
$500 apiece. So it is a major issue. Livonia has been very responsive
in terms of trying to get out at the corner of the City because we truly
are located right at that corner of the City. They have been more
responsive in going by there. We have taken some steps at the
dealership to reduce the opportunities, which includes three or four
managers who live right here in Livonia driving by the property. We
changed when our janitorial service opens and closes the building so
the time when nobody was there has shrunk. We haven't had any in the
past year. Anyway it is a continuing problem. A lot of pieces on a big
truck cost $1200 to $1500 and they come off fairly quick. We haven't
got the barbed wire now and this is kind of a dual deal. When you take
14552
down those trees to make the property more visible, you also make it
easier for them to step over that side fence.
``"' Mr. Engebretson: Barbed wire wouldn't stop that either would it?
Mr. Peters: No I don't think so. In the past what they have done is just cut through
the fence.
Mr. Alanskas: Across the street Penske Leasing is going to put a big facility there. I
know that Penske and Motor City Truck have a very good
understanding. They won't be parking a lot of their trucks on your
property, will they?
Mr. Peters: We have no relationship with Penske. I really don't know where that
Penske piece is. I looked at that piece of property across the street and
there are 12 acres back there, which they will subdivide into one acre,
two acre, three acre, etc. tracts. I don't know if that is where Penske is
going or not.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-241-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 95-11-8-26 by Motor City Truck
requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning
Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct a parking lot
and vehicle display area on property located at 39300 Schoolcraft Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked sheet 1 dated 7/19/95, prepared by
Arpee/Donnan, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except for the fact that the height of the light poles shall not exceed
20 ft.;
2) That no barbed wire shall be permitted along the top of the fence
that surrounds this property;
3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded lawn areas, and all planted materials shall be installed
prior to final inspection and to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy
condition.
14553
4) That any road or right-of-way requirements as may be imposed by
the Wayne County Road Commission for Eckles Road shall be
complied with.
Now
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 Livonia Community Credit Union requesting approval for signage
for the financial building located at 15420 Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 15.
Mr. Miller: This is the Livonia Community Credit Union located on the east side of
Farmington between Five Mile and Roycroft. They are proposing two
signs, one a ground sign and one a wall sign for their building. The
property is zoned OS so they are allowed one identification sign at ten
square feet, which can be used as a wall sign or a ground sign so the
signs they are proposing are not conforming. They are proposing one
wall sign on the south elevation of the building. It would be 38 sq. ft.
in size. They have an existing wall sign on the the west elevation of
their building and that will be removed so they will only have this one
sign on the building. They are also proposing one ground sign at 32 sq.
ft. to be located on the corner of Farmington and Roycroft. Because
this is over the 10 sq. ft. they are allowed, they had to go to the Zoning
Now Board to receive a variance for excessive signage. The petitioner was
on the Zoning Board's meeting tonight, hopefully prior to being here
tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is at the podium. How did the Zoning Board
meeting go? Tell us what happened.
Robert Bava: I am with the credit union of course. They approved the ground sign as
proposed. They modified the wall sign proposal to relocate the sign to
the westernmost part of the southern exposure of the building not to
exceed 21 sq. ft. So they scaled the sign down and relocated it to a
different section of the same wall.
Mr. Engebretson: What was the logic behind that?
Mr. Bava: The logic behind it was there were some existing trees that they
thought might obscure the view of the sign where we proposed the
placement of it, and also compromised to reduce the square footage.
14554
Mr. Engebretson: I understand the compromise aspect. As far as location, it sounds to
me the intent was to enhance the effectiveness of the sign. Is it your
impression it does that?
Mr. Bava: We are willing to go with what they proposed. After giving it some
thought and discussions we had with the ZBA, it probably will enhance
it by their recommendation to place it on the other part of the wall. It
probably would hide the sign where we proposed it to be.
Mr. Morrow: I think there was some discussion as to the correct PMS color of the
sign.
(The petitioner presented the correct color.)
Mr. Alanskas: The ground sign is going to be 21 square feet instead of 32?
Mr. Bava: No, the ground sign was approved as proposed and the wall sign was
scaled down to 21 sq. ft.
Mr. Engebretson: So what we have as a result of the Zoning Board action is a conforming
sign proposal.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-242-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Livonia Community
Credit Union requesting approval for signage for the financial building
located at 15420 Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, be
approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the Sign Package by Phillips Sign& Design, as received by the
Planning Commission on November 6, 1995, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to except for the fact that the wall sign shall
not exceed 21 sq. ft. in area.
as well as subject to the following additional condition required by the
Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) The ground sign will be internally illuminated, however the wall
sign (freestanding plastic letters) will not be illuminated. The
petitioner may either erect a new wall sign not exceeding 21 sq. ft.
in area, or relocate the existing signage on the westerly elevation to
the southerly elevation.
14555
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
‘'' On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 715th Regular Meeting
&Public Hearings held on November 28, 1995 was adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
\
.44 Robert Alanskas, Secretary
ATTEST: 4.Ce 11 �, JJ, E- � ,
G�
Ja k Engebr tson, Chairman
jg