HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-01-16 14608
MINUTES OF THE 717th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 16, 1996 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 717th 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 80 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
`r"" 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 95-11-1-26 by
Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six
Mile Road between Stamwich Blvd. and Merriman Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 11 from RUFC to R-3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to inform you that the petitioner has asked that this issue
not be heard tonight because of the possibility that the plan will be
extended to include additional property to the west of the area that was
advertised for this public hearing. However, since there may be people
in the audience that wish to speak to this proposal, we certainly would
like to give you the opportunity to make whatever comments you might
care to. If there is no one wishing to speak to the item, we are going to
adjourn the public hearing and move on to the next item because this
14609
petition ultimately is going to be withdrawn. Is there anyone wishing
to speak to this item. Seeing no one, this meeting will be adjourned to
a future meeting with date uncertain.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-1-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 on Petition 95-11-1-26 by Leo
Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile
Road between Stamwich Blvd. and Merriman Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 11 from RUFC to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 95-11-1-26 until date uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543,
as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-12-1-29 by
The Kroger Co. and High Equity Partners, L.P. requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge
�.. Avenue and Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from
RUFA to P.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their
office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Rick Ragsdale, 17197 Laurel Park Drive, N., Livonia: I am with the Kroger Company.
The purpose, as previously stated, for this rezoning request is to
provide parking necessary for the proposed expansion of the Kroger
store by approximately 14,150 sq. ft. The proposal is to expand the
store to the east on the existing C-2 zoned shopping center. The
rezoning of the property would allow for an additional 56 parking
spaces in the area. I have a plan of the proposed expansion if you think
it is appropriate that I show it to you. (He presented the plan) This
would provide for 14,150 additional square footage of the Kroger
store. The area being requested to be rezoned from RUF to P is this
strip here to the east of Spanich Court. This would provide 56
14610
additional parking spaces. We have laid it out with consideration given
to the additional residences behind the shopping center and to the east
and also to the proposed residences that will be built in the area
*o"" immediately to the east. We have taken the parking half way back. We
have provided a greenbelt area, and we are prepared to answer any
questions the commission might have.
Mr. Piercecchi: I notice you have a line of landscaping there. Are those pines? What
type of landscaping are you talking about there?
Mr. Ragsdale: They would be deciduous trees and some pines mixed in. This is not
the final landscape plan. This is more of a schematic drawing.
Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I asked, you are planning on a buffer there and deciduous
trees in the winter time are valueless for screening. Pine trees, I would
certainly recommend that. If you are going to screen it, let's screen it.
Mr. Ragsdale: In addition, we would propose to place a fence between the residential
properties and this would provide a buffer so there are no cut-thrus.
Some of the residents in the area expressed concern about potential
cut-thrus of their property to get over to the shopping center and we
would be willing to put up a fence.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are not talking about a cyclone type fence?
Mr. Ragsdale: Whatever is the City's pleasure.
Mr. LaPine: Along the east boundary line coming off Five Mile Road there is a berm
that goes along there now that separates the property from the new
subdivision. Is that staying. Are you planning additional shrubs on top
of that?
Mr. Ragsdale: This would actually be the new landscape division between what is now
the lot split. Right now the berm is through where the parking lot
would be built. It is right next to Spanich Court.
Mr. LaPine: Spanich Court, it is my understanding, is a private road. Is that
correct?
Mr. Ragsdale: Yes, it is owned by the owners of the shopping center.
Mr. LaPine: Because there is going to be additional traffic, is that road going to be
improved?
Mr. Ragsdale: We are maintaining it. There are no plans to widen it.
14611
Mr. LaPine: There is no repaving or anything like that?
``w Mr. Ragsdale: On an as-needed basis. When we developed this, what our plans called
for was to make the improvements necessary for the additional parking
lot and any improvements that are necessary for Spanich Court.
Mr. LaPine: The way the road goes now and where the parking is going to be, when
people leave their cars they will have to cross that road to go to the
shopping center. Is that correct?
Mr. Ragsdale: That would be correct. On the plan we have put in a pedestrian access,
taking one of the parking spaces away, which we felt is necessary for
the safety of the pedestrian.
Mr. LaPine: I have one more quick question. The 14,150 sq. ft. of additional floor
space in the store, what are you adding to the Kroger store? That is a
pretty big size store now.
Mr. Ragsdale: Right now the store is 43,200 sq. ft. Actually we are changing the
layout of the interior of the store. We are expanding the departments
we currently have in there to make it more of a 90's store similar to the
store we recently opened a year ago in Westland on Ford Road across
from the Westland Municipal Building. It would basically include all of
the departments that are in there right now but it would be put in what
we feel is a more customer-friendly shopping format with an expanded
produce department and an expanded bakery, deli, service, meat
department, an improved video department, an improved pharmacy
department. Basically what we would be doing is expanding the
selection and variety.
Mr. LaPine: So in reality you are not adding any new service, you are just
expanding the services already in there.
Mr. Ragsdale: Right.
Mrs. Blomberg: This is kind of what Mr. LaPine just asked but I just want to make sure
I understood you correctly. If I were to shop there, I would be going
out to the right and I would have to cross the road to get to my car. Is
that correct?
Mr. Ragsdale: If you were parking here.
Mrs. Blomberg: That parking will be for customers, in other words. That road is used
for truck traffic is that correct?
14612
Mr. Ragsdale: Yes it is in limited times of the day. Our delivery hours are limited.
We try not to have deliveries during peak customer traffic hours.
Mrs. Blomberg: It looks like you do have trees on the west side of that road. Is that
correct?
Mr. Ragsdale: The road is here so the trees are actually to the east side of the road.
There are trees both to the east and west of the parking lot.
Mrs. Blomberg: So when I was parking my car there, are those low trees ones I can see
through or by, or are they larger trees?
Mr. Ragsdale: These trees could be deciduous. You could see around them but we
don't intend to build a forest.
Mr. Alanskas: How many employees do you have at the present time?
Mr. Ragsdale: Approximately 180.
Mr. Alanskas: Where do they park their cars now?
Mr. Ragsdale: They park out in this area. Some park along the side of the store.
Some park behind the store.
Mr. Alanskas: Would you say you are talking at least 50 parking spaces?
Mr. Ragsdale: On the average probably 30.
Mr. Alanskas: With your new addition will you be adding more people?
Mr. Ragsdale: We will be adding approximately 35 more people.
Mr. Alanskas: That would be 10 to 12 more cars approximately, so you are close to
56 parking spaces.
Mr. Ragsdale: We have additional parking spaces.
Mr. Alanskas: Is it better to make that new parking area for your employees only so
the customers could park in the existing parking lot?
Mr. Ragsdale: That certainly is a possibility.
Mr. Alanskas: It would make more sense to have that for your employees only.
14613
Mr. Ragsdale: Like most retailers through the shopping center our main concern for
the parking is to have convenient parking for the customers and the
remote parking for the employees.
Mr. Alanskas: I think that would be more convenient.
Mr. Ragsdale: I think this would be the primary parking area for the customers. We
are not going to have our employees park in front.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make, you will be coming back to us with a
site plan showing this berm, correct?
Mr. Ragsdale: Yes. We will have a site plan that shows all the parking.
Mr. Morrow: The point I am making, we are here on the zoning issue and we are
getting this input. If the zoning is approved, you have some input as
far as what we have to look forward to when you come back with the
site plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Anything you want to add sir?
Mr. Ragsdale: I think we covered all the major issues. We have worked with the
neighbors about their concerns. We have worked with the City and
found out their concerns. We tried to come up with a plan that is a
compromise that would improve the shopping center but not
deteriorate the surrounding areas and we respectfully give it to you for
your consideration.
Mr. Engebretson: Have you worked with the Chamber of Commerce on this?
Mr. Ragsdale: Not the Chamber of Commerce. We worked with the staff. We had
some input from the previous Mayor.
Mr. Engebretson: The reason I asked you, I have a letter from the Chamber of Commerce
regarding the petition by the Kroger Company but with a different
address. I was wondering perhaps this was meant to address this
particular plan but obviously it doesn't. In that case, we will go to the
audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this
proposal.
Arthur Oswalt, 30544 Hoy: I am Vice President of B. E. Taylor's Civic Association. Our
membership is 141 members and on July 31, 1995 we met with Rick
Ragsdale and we discussed the parking lot. We discussed the
expansion, and at that particular time we were in agreement with them.
To follow up on August 28 we issued a letter out to all of our 141
14614
members asking for input. At that time the input was all favorable.
Again, Mr. Ragsdale contacted me about two weeks ago, brought out
'tawthe new site plan, indicated to us the greenbelt area, the trees, etc. and
again we hustled very fast, got back to 45 key members of our
membership and again were in favor of it. Our basic reason for being in
favor of it was because we felt Krogers was going to do a good job for
us. On top of that we have homes that are being built behind us, a
greenbelt area, a buffer zone, and on top of that we are going to cut
down passageway of young adults and children that pass through the
lots going to Krogers. Last year around July we experienced, not a big
one, but a small fire due to the fact that one of the persons going
through threw a cigarette butt into the field and at that time it started a
small fire. Anyway, we have gone through everything. Our letter is
available and has been and we are in favor of it.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Oswalt, have you taken note of the clean up that has occurred back
in the industrial area in back of the store there?
Mr. Oswalt: Yes we have.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that a new fence that has been constructed between the residential
area?
Mr. Oswalt: Yes it is.
Mr. Engebretson: And does that meet with your approval?
Mr. Oswalt: Yes. The only thing we talked about on the fence at that time the
Mayor wanted a wood fence because of the buffer zone. We thought
now we would like to see a galvanized fence of some type. Although
we are not closing the door on a wood fence, what happens when the
wind blows out of the west and all the paper gathers, etc.? If the fence
is constructed right, we again are going to be in favor of it. We do
need a fence on the east and south boundary lines that encompasses the
homes that are going to be built there.
Mr. Engebretson: I trust you will continue to be in touch with Mr. Ragsdale to work that
out. With respect to the existing fence and the clean up, I am sure that
pleases you.
Mr. Oswalt: Oh yes.
John Borovsky, 15007 Flamingo: The only concern I have is with the amount of debris
that seems to come off the Kroger parking lot. The prevailing winds
are from the west and advertising flyers and empty bags, and things like
14615
that end up on the east side of that property all the time. Right now
there are some woods in there that seem to prevent that debris from
'trycoming into the neighborhood, but by extending the parking lot 100
and some feet that debris is going to be even closer into the
neighborhood. There is a tremendous amount over there. It gets
cleaned up once in a while by neighbors. Just the fact that there is an
unbuffered parking lot when the wind blows it brings that paper on the
east. I was wondering what Kroger has in the way of a clean up plan
that would regularly patrol that and keep that debris from blowing into
the neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson: That is a good question sir. We are not really in a position to tie them
down to anything tonight because of the nature of the hearing being on
zoning, but during the site planning process, if this zoning is successful,
we certainly will be very much interested in those issues, but I think I
heard tonight there is a plan for either a wall or a fence.
Mr. Borovsky: I had no knowledge of a fence being erected. Now that I understand
there might be a fence there, I would prefer a cyclone fence which
would catch that debris.
Mr. Engebretson: They are required to put a masonry wall or a fence or a greenbelt or a
combination of those things, and the City, the petitioner and the
residents have a lot of latitude in working that out, but I can assure you
'441' this, if the residents in the immediate surrounding area have strong
feelings, one way or other, that tends to get supported by the City and
I think you heard the petitioner say that they are flexible on this issue.
We are very concerned with your comments and your point of view.
Unfortunately next time around is the time when it will be more
appropriate to discuss those things. Mr. Oswalt back there would be a
reliable source in keeping track of when these meetings occur.
However, I am sure Jean has your name and address, and if you are
interested we will make sure that you get a notice when they come in
for site plan approval if the zoning is approved.
Pete Wood: I own the one acre of ML property. We use Spanich Court to get in
and out of our property. I am not really sure how that would affect me
as far as the way that is laid out but there are some concerns because I
have already had one fender bender with my service trucks coming in
and out of Spanich Court. The traffic that comes out of Krogers comes
into Spanich Court very close to Five Mile Road. There is no stop sign
and people have the tendency to shoot right into the street without
looking and it actually creates a traffic jam because they actually stop
the traffic going into Spanich Court. It should be thought out carefully
how that is laid out because it is a problem.
14616
Mr. Engebretson: You are right, and it won't surprise you that those kinds of issues
would be addressed at the next step in the process, if the zoning issue is
Nifty
approved. I appreciate your comment. I would suggest that you take a
look at your drive. The property to the rear there, I about lost my car
there. There is a pretty big hole there.
Mr. Wood: There were also catch basin covers missing on Spanich Court for
several weeks. They were just recently put in.
Mr. Engebretson: It looked like they were pushing some dirt around but I wasn't sure
what was going on. You own the property that is immediately to the
rear?
Mr. Wood: Yes sir.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you for coming in and please come back and see us when we go
through the site plan approval process.
Mr. Kappler, 15071 Flamingo: I am right behind the fence, and every time the wind blows
I get all the flyers from the Kroger store and all the plastic bags that the
people throw out because the wind takes them right over on my
property.
Nor Mr. Engebretson: I think we are going to fix that for you.
Mr. Kappler: Also, there are two big poplar trees that are close to my house. If they
would happen to fall over they would hit my house. They should come
down before any building or anything is done.
Mr. Engebretson: Are these trees posing a danger in your opinion?
Mr. Kappler: Certainly if the wind knocks them over because I have had a lot of them
knocked over before.
Mr. Engebretson: H, maybe you could have Forestry or somebody check that out.
Mr. Shane: All right.
Mr. Engebretson: We will have someone look into that for you.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-12-1-29 closed.
14617
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-2-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 on Petition 95-12-1-29 by The
Kroger Co. and High Equity Partners, L.P. requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and
Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from RUFA to P, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 95-12-1-29 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor
encroachment of a non-residential zoning district into a residential
area;
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an addition to
a shopping center building so as to further increase the viability of
an existing commercial enterprise; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543,
as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-11-1-28 by
Ventura Properties, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the east
side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile and Ladywood Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 from R-2A to OS.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure this petition is properly before us
before we get into the public hearing. I would like to call attention to
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543 as amended. It reads as follows:
"At least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing the applicant shall
erect a four (4) foot by four (4) foot sign on the property proposed to
be rezoned with an insert provided by the City Clerk containing the
following information: (a) At the top of the sign the following words
shall appear:'This property is proposed to be rezoned', followed by the
14618
present zoning district at the time of the petition and the proposed or
requested zoning district sought. The full name of the zoning districts
shall be used as, for example, RUF, rural urban farm. (b) The name
__Nian, and address of the real party requesting the zoning change. (c) The
proposed use of the land or building if the request for rezoning is
successful. (d) The phone number at City Hall where interested
persons can call for further information. The sign shall remain up until
the application process is completed and shall thereafter be removed by
the petitioner within 30 days." The reason I read that is because
several times in looking at this property I could find no sign. I found
two "For Sale" signs but I couldn't find a sign with this information,
and it is for that reason I wanted to bring that up because I certainly
didn't see one on several occasions and I don't know if my fellow
Commissioners were ever there. It wasn't there. I don't think there
was any intent by the petitioner to sneak this through the
neighborhood, but by the same token it is a requirement. So I would
like (a) to see if any other Commissioners found that to be the case, and
(b) where do we go from here?
Mr. Engebretson: I know I didn't see a sign there. In view of recent criticism that has
been directed toward the Planning Commission, me in particular, for
having overlooked a well-buried technicality in another matter that was
viewed to be potentially an illegal act to have proceeded with a public
hearing, I guess I would be most reluctant to send a package off to the
Ntalw— City Council that might be flawed. Since I don't have a legal
background, and I don't know the precise legal interpretation of
whether or not this would constitute a legal public hearing in view of
the fact there was no sign on that property, at least several days ago, it
is going to be my suggestion that we handle this much the way the
Council handled their public hearing, that being to proceed with the
public hearing. I have a belief that many of the people in the audience
tonight came here to deal with this particular issue, but whether or not
we can dispose of it I am not sure. My inclination is that we can't. I
think that if we were to proceed in error in taking action one way or the
other, there is a possibility that it may throw this project off track. It
may bring additional unwarranted criticism to this body and we like to
play by the rules. Those of you that know us, know the Planning
Commission does play by the rules all the time. If we do find ourselves
in a dilemma where we may technically miss something because of an
obscure rule that we didn't know about or an obscure law or Attorney
General opinion, then we don't feel too guilty about that but we try our
very best to do the correct job. Mr. Morrow, it is my belief the inquiry
you raised should give rise to a genuine concern as to whether or not
this meeting is legally before us, but in deference to the residents who
may have come out to address this issue tonight, I know that many did
14619
because I have a lot of correspondence here and that is a good indicator
that many people in the audience are here to address this issue, I think
we owe it to the people to proceed. I believe that at the conclusion of
`�► the public hearing it may be in order to table the matter to seek a legal
opinion as to whether or not this was properly before us. If it was, then
we can come back and take a vote next time. If it wasn't, we can have
the petitioner re-advertise, put a sign up, and we can hold a new public
hearing sometime in the spring. So we are going to proceed this
evening. Those of you who came to address this issue will have the
opportunity, and I don't want to leave you with the impression that we
are just going to let this dangle. When we come to the conclusion of
the meeting we will see if anyone has any light to shed that may cause
this to be determined to be voted up or down tonight. It may well not
be. Just so you know where we are coming from.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, the ordinance states they are supposed to post the property
on what the rezoning is going to be. Does the ordinance specifically
state that they must post the property before they file the petition?
Mr. Shane: No, it says within 15 days of the public hearing they must post the sign
and it actually gives the verbiage of what has to be on the sign.
Mr. LaPine: Maybe we should go back and look at that. Maybe what we should do
is make the property be posted prior to the time they file for the
petition, therefore we wouldn't run into this problem because the
property would have to be posted before you could take the petition to
the Planning Commission. Would that make sense?
Mr. Shane: What really should be done is the petitioner is obligated to erect a sign.
If he doesn't erect the sign, then the public hearing shouldn't be held
unless it is 15 days after the sign is erected. So the onus is on the
petitioner to erect the sign when he is supposed to. The other thing I
can say is there will be another public hearing at the Council level so
the sign was posted probably three or four days ago so it will be up for
a considerable amount of time before the Council meeting. The notice
does state in the ordinance it must be erected 15 days prior. Putting up
a sign before the petition is filed doesn't make a lot of sense. You are
asking them to do something before they have even made up their mind
to do it. I think the ordinance works fine as long as the petitioner
follows the rules.
Mr. Engebretson: In this instance, because there are so many residential uses abutting this
property, there were other forms of notice given to the neighbors but
the fact is the ordinance specifically calls for particular requirements to
be fulfilled. They appear not to have been fulfilled, and therefore I am
14620
most reluctant to subject us and the neighbors, and the City, to having
the Council react to us having made an illegal or inappropriate vote on
something that didn't meet the ordinance. We are going to proceed.
`"a' Scott go ahead.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
We have 8 to 10 letters from various property owners, all of which are
in opposition to this petition, for example one from Charles Mekura of
37580 Sherwood Ct., one from Mark E. Pence on Liverpool, Patrick
Madden of Sherwood Court, Lorraine N. Maser of Sherwood Court,
Sandra Lee and James Ralston of Liverpool, Richard and Nancy
Fitzpatrick of Sherwood Ct., Robert and Linda Quertermous of
Sherwood Court Jane and Chester Kolodziej of Liverpool, Carol Horn
of Plymouth Woods Drive, Denise and David DiBiase on Liverpool and
finally we have one from Donald and Roberta Sedestrom of 37637
Sherwood Court. I will read that one as a representative of the rest
because they all say pretty much the same thing.
Their letter reads as follows: We are opposed to the proposed
rezoning of the property located east of Newburgh Road between
Ladywood and Five Mile Road. Our objections are based on the
following: 1. This area of Livonia has been designated by the City of
Livonia as a low-density, single-family residential area. We purchased
our home on Sherwood Court for that reason as did many other
families. The area should be kept residential, in keeping with the city's
master plan. 2. Numerous properties (already zoned OS) exist in
Livonia. Several examples: Jamestown Offices on Pembroke...700 to
23,000 square feet for lease; 37672 W. Six Mile.... up to 7,500 square
feet for lease; the east side of Levan, across from St. Mary Hospital,
3.75 acres zoned OS for sale; Laurel Office Park..14,500 square feet
for lease. Properties which are adjacent to zoned business property
could be developed, in lieu of rezoning areas which are residential.
3. Many area residents walk or jog on the sidewalk along Newburgh.
The addition of several more driveways, with the number of cars
entering and exiting, creates an additional hazard which is unacceptable
and further detracts from the residential nature of the area. Finally,
several fundamental issues need to be addressed before any decision
can or should be made concerning possible rezoning. First, a traffic
study needs to be conducted to determine the effect of additional
ingress and egress on Newburgh. Serious consideration should also be
14621
given to the installation of a left turn signal at Five Mile and Newburgh.
This intersection is becoming as dangerous as Seven Mile and
Newburgh. Second, because the property in Petition 95-11-1-28 is
estimated to be 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 feet higher than the backyards of the
residences which adjoin it on the east, the potential for flooded
basements is excellent. Accordingly, a storm water drainage study
needs to be conducted to determine the impact on surrounding property
owners. A more reasonable time to review this petition would seem to
be after the above study results have been shared with affected property
owners. We thank you for your consideration.
Chairman Engebretson also turned in letters in opposition to this
rezoning proposal from Donald and Dorothy Hoppe on Liverpool,
Timothy& Eileen Ashley on Liverpool, Michael and Virginia Farrell on
Liverpool, Walter and Patricia Johnston of Sherwood Ct., Mark and
Lisa Nicholas of Sherwood Ct., Donald and Doris Gorton of Liverpool
and Carl and Doris McConnell of 15655 Liverpool.
Also turned in to the Commission was a petition in opposition to this
proposal signed by approximately 267 persons.
Mr. Engebretson: I want to thank those citizens who took the time to write these
thoughtful letters. I assure you they will all be a part of the public
record. With that, we will call the petitioner forward and ask his
`w reason for making this request.
Peter Ventura: I represent Joseph Epps who is the principal in the CPA firm of Epps &
Antonishen. They are the optionors on this land and seek to build an
office building on this property similar to the one they currently occupy
at 17800 Newburgh Road. The site plan shows a three-building office
park consisting of two one-story buildings and one two-story building
totaling approximately 61,000 sq. ft. of land. This compares with our
site study, which would allow over 72,000 sq. ft. of land so we are
covering this land according to City ordinance. There are no variances
on this site plan. The building setbacks and green areas meet or exceed
all the City requirements. The architecture of the building will be
substantially the same as the building that exists at 17800 Newburgh,
which is a building that was given the City Beautification Award this
past spring. The nature of the park will be very similar to that existing
at 17800 Newburgh Road. The character and maintenance of the park
will be very similar to other parks owned and operated by the principal
investors of this park. They are the Livonia Metroplex at the northwest
corner of Farmington Road and Schoolcraft; I-96 Office Center at the
southeast corner of I-96 and Schoolcraft; and the office park on the
southeast corner of Levan and Schoolcraft and Northwood Corporate
14622
Park which is at Winchester Drive and Six Mile Road in Northville
Township. I will be happy to answer your questions. I have one
question of Mr. Engebretson with regard to a subsequent public
*glow hearing. Exactly when would it be held and under what auspices?
Mr. Engebretson: I can't tell you. I have learned not to make guesses. What I anticipate
is going to happen, it is going to go to the Law Department and we will
get an opinion as to the validity of the petition and to make a
determination whether or not we need to re-advertise and schedule a
new public hearing. If that were the case, it would probably be
sometime in early spring I would think. I am not sure. What about the
sign?
Mr. Ventura: Initially it was overlooked. A paper sign was put on there and it came
off in a matter of days. A wood sign was ordered and it is currently up.
Mr. Engebretson: When was it installed?
Mr. Ventura: I am not certain. It was either Friday or Monday.
Mr. Engebretson: It wasn't there on Sunday morning. I would like to correct one
comment Mr. Ventura. The building at 17800 Newburgh Road was
awarded a beautification award for the landscaping. I happen to know
that because I nominated the site, as you know. I just wanted to make
sure we kept things in proper perspective there.
Mr. Morrow: Do the people own the property now or is it subject to the rezoning?
Mr. Ventura: It is subject to the rezoning.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
proposal. If you will be so kind as to make whatever remarks you
wish, but if we could keep bringing up new things rather than
addressing the same issue over and over. Most of us live relatively
close by and are quite familiar with the site.
Mr. Ventura: May I also offer that I will be happy to answer any questions of the
residents.
Mr. Engebretson: What we would like to do is if there are questions of the petitioner, we
will accumulate them and call him up at the end and take them one at a
time. We are not going to get into a debate with the petitioner.
Sandra Ralston, 15631 Liverpool: Before purchasing my home on Liverpool in 1973 I
inquired about the property directly behind my home and was assured
r..
14623
by the Planning Commission that it was zoned residential and there
were no changes planned. In August of 1995 I learned a developer
was planning to purchase the southwest quarter of Section 17. When
Ni" I called the Planning Commission office I was told they had no request
and that the section was still zoned R-2A on the master plan. I called
once a month since then and was given the same answer even though I
saw ribbons being placed by surveyors on the property. We finally
received notice the end of December. While we are not against
progress, changing this residential property would have a deleterious
effect on the property owners. Our properties would decrease in
value, and those directly abutting the unsightly wall are difficult to
sell. There would be an increase in traffic in an already heavily
trafficked area due to the expressway intersections and the Laurel
Park Mall. There are three schools within one half mile of this
property on Newburgh; Ladywood High School, St. Edith School and
Holmes Junior High. I heard there was one accident there yesterday
and I heard there was a second one in the evening, a worse one. Our
quality of life would be affected also by the barrier wall, parking lot
light pollution, loss of green space and flooding from the parking lot
since we are two feet below the level of the proposed building site and
there is an unusually high water table due to the artesian spring on
parcel #067-99-0003-001. A quick check of the area revealed
available office space at Five Mile and Levan, and I took pictures.
There is space available at the southeast corner. There is a lot zoned
office at the northeast corner. I didn't take pictures of St. Marys,
which is expanding, and the new dental office on the southeast corner
under construction. Six Mile and Newburgh, empty office space at
the southeast corner, southwest and northwest. At the northeast
corner, Waste Management is always advertising space. Not pictured
is the 14,000 sq. ft. Laurel Park on the northwest side. Also not
pictured is the Six Mile/Haggerty area. There is space available there
at the southeast corner and then Seven Mile/Newburgh. I didn't take
a picture of the four-story building but there is space available. Do we
really need more medical office space when St. Marys is again
expanding, Providence Hospital is building at Seven Mile and
Newburgh and U of M and Oakwood have moved into the facility on
Haggerty south of Eight Mile Road. By rezoning this property from
residential to office services the City would be breaking its covenant
with the citizens of Livonia who purchased their homes in good faith
based on the master plan for development. There is ample room to
build 14 homes on 70'x120' lots or 11 homes on 90'x120' lots with a
berm and service drive similar to those on Six Mile. We have 197
signatures from residents who received this notice and are vehemently
opposed to rezoning, and an additional 68 from neighbors who are
also affected but did not receive the letter. For most of us our homes
14624
are our greatest asset. The purpose of the Planning Commission
according to Section 1.02 of Article I of Zoning Ordinance #543 is to
enhance the life of its citizens and not degrade them. There clearly is
'o"' no need for additional office space in this part of Livonia. Please
consider the wishes of the majority in this matter before making your
recommendation. I would like everybody here who is opposed to this
to please stand at this time. (Approximately 60 to 70 persons stood
up)
Wade Coots, 37136 Sherwood: I enjoy the neighborhood quite a lot. Normally I am
never opposed to anyone using their property as they see fit as long as
they are not causing undue hardship or detriments to their neighbors.
In this case I think that is a problem. We have an awful lot of medical
facilities in Livonia, and I don't believe at this point in time, with the
amount of available office space, there is that much of a pressing need
for more, which would be normally your decision except it affects the
property values and quality of life of people that live in the area. The
problem with Newburgh Road is left turns are made from the center
lane and we already have five or six roads all coming in within that
little stretch of road, people waiting to turn left going south and
people waiting to turn left going north are already nearly running into
each other. I think the City engineer should consider his view of
whether this is an appropriate project. Also, medical facilities have
usage very similar to retail. Instead of having customers coming to
`r buy things, you have people coming and going to get medical services
so you have a much higher traffic pattern than if it were an office
center basically for whatever office activity. Really it is a misnomer to
call a medical facility an office complex because it is the retail
establishment of people who sell medical services. The City of
Southfield has, in my opinion, overzoned the amount of commercial
real estate they have allowed in residential areas and suffered a lot for
it in terms of stagnating the property values. Livonia has recently
been ranked as the 8th best place in the United States to live in, and I
think a good portion of that ranking is because we are a bedroom
community and I would like to see it kept that way, and I speak for a
number of other people.
Vicki Hicks, 37578 South Sherwood Ct.: In addition to being a resident in this
neighborhood for over 15 years, I am also licensed with the State of
Michigan, Department of Commerce, as a residential builder, license
#2101094935. I very much object to having this area rezoned for a
lot of ideas that you already presented. There is a ton of office space,
more than 35 signs I saw just this weekend. In addition, there are no
other business areas except at the corners of Five Mile and Newburgh
and Six Mile and Newburgh. It is an entire residential neighborhood.
14625
It should remain so. There are a number of areas being built up and
new houses being put in that are in excess of$250,000 that would
increase the property value and not decrease it by office space. It
would not ruin our landscape by having a two-story office building in
this neighborhood. I have talked to the neighbors who are abutting
the Providence Center. They all say it is like looking at the sun
coming up all 24 hours because of the amount of light that shines from
the new halogen lights on those parking lots. Those same halogen
lights would more than likely be in this particular area. My personal
bedroom happens to face that area and I certainly do not want to be
up all night with the amount of light shining in there. As many
residents have spoken, the ability of turning out of streets to turn left
and turn north on Newburgh is almost impossible between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., and between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and
6:30 p.m. As you have heard many people are turning into the left
turn lane in order to get a break in traffic. It is against the law in
Michigan to turn into that lane to wait for traffic to clear. We would
have to wait for three hours to get out of our street otherwise. At this
point we are only contending with the traffic northbound on
Newburgh. The addition of office space there would have us
contending with any number of traffic coming in and out of that office
space. The intersection at Five Mile and Newburgh is a highly
accident-prone intersection. The addition of that traffic is absolutely
ridiculous. The amount of additional noise in this area has gone up
geometrically with businesses because of the people coming to dump
trash at three and four in the morning with the dumpsters with
individuals that have their parking lots plowed at 2:00 a.m. because
that is when it is convenient during the winter months to get your
parking lot plowed so that you can get your customers in and out.
Just the general overall amount of noise. I do not feel there is any
reason to put office space in here. We have plenty of office space in
Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: H, I am sort of alarmed by Ms. Hicks comment relative to the lighting
of Providence Hospital. We were given some pretty strong
assurances there that those lights were not going to intrude on the
residences. Could we look into that and see what we can do for those
people?
Mr. Morrow: What were the hours of operation Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Engebretson: The hours that the lights are on? I don't recall the specific details but
I think we need to get the minutes out and the resolutions and see if
perhaps there are some problems there.
14626
Mr. Shane: Sure we can do that.
Carl McConnell, 15655 Liverpool: The first speaker that was up here, I endorse
'toes. everything that was said, and the other speakers I also subscribe to
that. I am opposed to it. My personal concern along with the other
things, and it has been briefly mentioned, is the safety aspect.
Newburgh has become an extremely busy road in the last 18 years that
I have lived there. We have some very bad left turns that the
gentleman referred to coming head on with each flow of traffic south
and north turning left. I think the City has to take a hard look at the
Five Mile and Newburgh intersection on up to the Six Mile and
Newburgh intersection. That is a very hazardous stretch of road. I
see a potential for pedestrians that use Newburgh sidewalks
considerably, especially on that east side, both youngsters and adults.
I feel this could create a serious traffic situation that could involve
more bad accidents along the Five Mile and Newburgh/Six Mile Road
area.
Mr. Engebretson: I would suggest to you sir that you might want to take your concerns
to the Traffic Commission relative to the concerns expressed at Five
Mile and Newburgh and all the way up Newburgh to the City limits
because there have been some improvements made in the area, as you
know, and the Traffic Commission is where most of that work
originates.
Mr. McConnell: I appreciate your comment but I also think the Planning Commission
has to consider that in their determination.
Mr. Engebretson: We will take that into consideration.
Dave Hudyma, 37533 Lancaster: I moved to Livonia in 1955 with my parents. I am a
40-year resident and I have seen the Commission change a lot of
things. I have seen a lot of things come and go. I have seen a lot of
promises broken. I don't want to see this one occur. I have seen a lot
of places where there wouldn't be any buildings over two stories.
That has changed. I have seen Laurel Park come and I really don't
want to see any more. The traffic over there is horrendous. I play
suicide every day turning left into my street on Lancaster. It is getting
to be absurd. It shows a population loss in the long term growth by
the studies by the U of M that Livonia is going to lose 3% population
in 30 years. Office space is more than readily available. We do not
need to see this occur.
David Hudyma, 37533 Lancaster: Relating to our population. I just started a new job
and the number of the people I work with are from out of town. One
14627
of the guys is from Livonia, and he is thinking of moving to Livonia
solely because of the highly residential nature, but with the extensive
development he has already mentioned it is making him consider
instead of going to Livonia, going to Farmington. All I see is we have
open spaces everywhere and additional office space is only going to
reduce the potential for bringing in new population. You have people
from Chicago wanting to move to Livonia and residential property is
exactly what they are looking for at this time. Office space is only
going to push people away.
Mr. Engebretson: You tell your friend from Chicago to come to Livonia and he will
never regret it. I would think the worst corner of Livonia would be
better than the best corner in Chicago.
Ilene Beale: I live on Liverpool. My backyard would directly touch these
buildings. I am going to address the purely human aspect of this, and
that is that we have lived in this neighborhood for 20 plus years. Now
that we are getting into the retirement years, we have to get up every
morning and look out our window at a cement wall. We will be
moving. Young families will be wanting to move in and they will have
businesses in their backyard. No one wants to raise a family there.
When we moved there we were told it would be a residential area and
now everywhere you look in Livonia there are more office spaces. I
worked on Schoolcraft Road for almost ten years and never have
'— those offices been full, not ever. I just want to say how much I am
opposed to this.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you madam. I would just like to comment on your concern
relative to your expectation when you moved here and you learned
that the land was zoned residential, the master plan was residential.
Until someone makes a determination to make an effort to change the
zoning, of course it stays that way. The master plan is the City's
guide. It is not a commitment that this is the way it is going to be
forever but that is the plan, and that is why it is called a Master Land
Use Plan. There are occasions when the Master Land Use Plan is
changed to accommodate changing conditions that are deemed
appropriate. The thing is that by holding this public hearing, by going
through this process, the City isn't taking a position one way or
another, as you know. Every land owner or option holder has the
right to at least seek a change and they can make their arguments for
and the residents can make their arguments against it. The Planning
Commission and the City Council listen to all that and interpret the
ordinance, take into consideration all the obligations that govern how
these decisions are made, and then render their decision, and in most
instances where there is an intrusion into a neighborhood directly, they
`,
14628
fail. There are occasions, however, where they are successful. So it is
crucial when matters like this come up, that people turn out like this
and make their wishes known. I am not siding with either side. I am
`"' just making the observation that you are doing exactly the right thing.
I understand exactly how you feel. We all would share that feeling if
we owned that property. It is our job now to weigh all the facts and
then make a decision albeit it may be necessary to make it sometime in
the future based on what we have heard tonight. Thank you very
much for coming. We appreciate your comments.
Richard Austin, 15571 Liverpool: My wife and my children and I moved to our home
two years ago and since that time we have put a lot of money into the
upgrade of our property. We believe any office buildings built behind
our property would immediately decrease the value of our property,
and we are very concerned about that particular issue.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I am going to offer a tabling resolution to date
uncertain. I am going to put that decision on you based on when you
think you can get an opinion, and whether or not we have to schedule
another public hearing because I think I would be less than candid if I
didn't give the people in the audience an idea of where I am coming
from, at least on what I have heard here tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: There is no support for a tabling motion.
Mr. McCann: I would like to make a motion that the petition be denied. The reason I
am doing this is if you take a look at the nature, intent, and purpose of
the section Mr. Morrow quoted, it is to give the neighbors notice.
When we decided we wanted to change the zoning ordinance, we felt
there wasn't sufficient notice being given to those neighbors so they
could come back and say how did that zoning change? Mr. Chairman,
myself and I think Mr. Morrow, were all on the Planning Commission
at the time we suggested to the Council this particular item. In this
instance, the neighbors have been well notified. They came out. They
notified each other. They did a tremendous job of passing around
information on this. They got the word out to the neighbors, and in
this instance since I am making a denying resolution, and we are going
to recommend that this be denied, there is nobody that would be able to
complain and say how can you pass something we didn't hear about. I
believe we are sending out, #1 if my motion were approved, we would
be sending out our feeling right now where we intend to go, that we
don't think it is appropriate. If, in fact, the petitioner did appeal that
decision to the City Council, there would be more than sufficient time
between now and the public hearing, the sign would be up there, and in
this case I do not feel that republicizing this and going forward again is
14629
going to notify any more people or serve any other purpose to notify
individuals of what is going on here or change the effect of what we are
going to do today. In that case we would only be delaying the motions
No` and making many of these people return for another hearing, which I
don't believe is necessary. I believe I have enough information before
me today to recommend a denying resolution.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on January 16, 1966 on Petition 95-11-1-28 by
Ventura Properties, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the east
side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile and Ladywood Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 from R-2A to OS, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend go the City Council that Petition 95-
11-1-28 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan designation of low density residential for the subject
property;
2) That the proposed change of zoning represents a further
encroachment of non-residential zoning into a residential area;
�.. 3) That there is no demonstrated need for additional office type zoning
in this sector of the City:
4) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding residential uses in the area.
5) That the subject property is of a size and shape as to be readily
developable for residential purposes under its present zoning
category; and
6) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the developing
character of the area which is single family residential.
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. LaPine: I seconded the motion but I think in all due respect, we didn't give the
petitioner an opportunity if he had anything to add after the public
hearing.
14630
Mr. Engebretson: There were no questions raised for him so I presume he had said
everything he had to say. I don't see him at the podium. The petitioner
indicates nothing further.
r..
Mr. Morrow: I don't necessarily find fault with what Mr. McCann says as it relates to
tonight's petition, but on the same token one of the reasons we
amended this ordinance was because as hard as we tried to advertise it
and get the word out to the people, there was always the case where
not everybody knew about it in the immediate area. That is why we
changed the ordinance. If I am going to err, I am going to err on the
side of following the ordinance. I was going to indicate, when the
Chairman said I should hold my comments, that I would be less than
candid to share with you that based on what I heard here tonight, if I
were to vote tonight, it would be not in favor of the petition to rezone.
That is where I am coming from. I stick to my original position that I
think it is not properly before us but that is one man's opinion. That is
where I am coming from. It is not that I don't want to take action
tonight, as the Chairman indicated recently we were taken to task
because of the matter of hours of notifying the public of one of our
meetings. They said it was improperly before them. I kind of see this
as a similarity because it is only a recommendation, but that is from my
perspective. Don't think I am trying to stall you off. If I voted tonight,
it would be against you, but if we had to hold another public hearing,
maybe something would come up that could change my mind. I can't
``ft. imagine what it would be, but there is always that possibility and I have
to have an open mind up until the time we vote.
Mr. Alanskas: In my mind this issue is a complete issue of spot zoning. When you are
completely surrounded by residential and want to put in OS, I think it is
wrong. If I were to vote tonight, I would vote no, but due to a
technicality, I can't give a no vote until I find out if it is legal.
Mr. Engebretson: I have a problem with this too because I sat in the audience the other
night and someone sat in that chair there, and Mrs. Blomberg was in
the audience and she saw a very strong broadside leveled for having
conducted a meeting improperly, and the case was even more trivial
than what Mr. Morrow said. It wasn't a matter of hours, the concern
was that we hadn't posted the signs on the door of City Hall that
nobody uses in the dark. We had posted the notice at 7:30 p.m. in the
lobby, which is where they are normally posted, and because the
Attorney General apparently rendered some decision I wasn't aware of
and hadn't followed the letter of the law in that regard, we were
considered to have likely held an improper meeting. I don't know if an
opinion has been rendered on that yet or not. My point is I don't
support this proposal but I am reluctant to vote against a denying
14631
resolution because it might appear I support the petition. I don't want
to send that message. I don't think there is any necessity to go through
rnor another public hearing process again if it is determined this was not
properly before us, but how can I, within seven days of having been
chastised, and criticized, and taken to task, taken to the woodshed, for
having been unaware of every last utterance of the Attorney General in
Lansing? I just feel very uncomfortable sending a flawed package but I
can't vote against a denial. If it gets to me and it is tied, I know how I
will vote.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, let me ask this question. I supported the motion to
deny. If a subsequent motion is made to table and if we get a legal
opinion that says that we did everything proper, then this motion to
deny would take precedent over a motion to table, or on the other
hand, if the legal opinion comes down and they say they must post a
sign and we have to hold another public hearing, does that mean all
these people will have to come back or can we pick up all the minutes
from this public hearing and use that as a basis for denying.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess we would have to ask for that opinion, but it would be my
belief, based on past experience, that what happens here tonight
happened. It is a matter of public record. There are verbatim minutes
taken. They will be approved in due course. It would be my
impression that if a substitute motion remains to table, to just make
sure that we are complying with the letter of the ordinance, and if the
Law Department renders a decision that this was legally before us, then
we reschedule as we would as a pending item. The people don't need
to return. We put it up for a vote and basically what I hear, it gets
denied.
Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with everybody in the audience there is so much office space
property in Livonia that we don't have to put more of it in the system.
I understand your concern about the meeting being legal. It think it is a
very good point Mr. Chairman and I commend you for it, and I will
offer a motion to table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-3-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 on Petition 95-11-1-28 by Ventura
Properties, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of
Newburgh Road between Five Mile and Ladywood Roads in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 17 from R-2A to OS, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 95-11-1-28 until date uncertain.
r..
14632
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543,
`w as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe the summary I just gave should leave no doubt in anyone's
mind where this sets and what is going to happen. It will go to the
Legal Department tomorrow with an official request as to whether or
not this matter was legally, properly before us. If we learn it was, we
use the evidence gathered here tonight to then put the matter to rest
two weeks from tonight, assuming it comes back in time to make that
agenda. If it is determined that this hearing was inappropriate and that
we need to re-advertise, the sign will go up, the public hearing date will
appear, and we will have to go through the process again. However,
we will also have to make the determination whether or not this body
of testimony that appeared tonight would automatically become a part
of that. H, do you have a feel for that based on your many years of
experience?
Mr. Shane: Sure, it would be no problem. We wouldn't change the number of the
petition. It would be the same petition except we would have a
rehearing. Whatever evidence was gathered at this hearing would be
N"w added to whatever new information would come at that hearing.
Mr. Engebretson: So the purpose of the new hearing would be simply to take new
evidence. The petitions would stand. The correspondence would
stand, and all the comments would stand both on the petitioner's part
and the residents' part?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Lady in audience: The fact that if this gets denied, would that make it just for this office
zoning or everything?
Mr. Engebretson: It would make the zoning change null and void. It would stay
residential. But be aware folks this is just the first step. Whenever the
Planning Commission disposes of this, approved or denied, it
automatically goes to the City Council and there is another public
hearing. So vigilance is the key word.
Mr. LaPine: If this was denied, it only means it is denied to this petitioner. If a new
petitioner wants to come in and ask for a rezoning of this property or
another property, he can do it. If that is denied, another person can
14633
come in. It can go on forever. Just because we deny this one, it is for
this petitioner only.
Mr. Engebretson: The City Council does not always agree with the City Planning
Commission. That is why you need to participate in the process at both
stages.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-12-1-30 by
Gino Silvestri requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Ann
Arbor Trail between Wayne and Levan Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32
from RUF to R-C.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they note that Ann Arbor Trail has not been dedicated to its fullest
extent (60') in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan.
Further, it appears that storm water run-off from the site must be
outletted to the Middle Rouge River within the Hines Park area. In this
connection the petitioner should contact the Wayne County (Parks
Division) relative to their requirements for storm sewer construction
within the Hines Park. (On site detention may be required.)
Appropriate pavement widening along Ann Arbor Trail will also be
N•aw required.
We have also received a petition signed by 12 property owners stating
they wish to register their opposition to this petition and request that it
be denied.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present? Please come forward and tell us your reasons
for making this request.
Seymour Zate: I am a Registered Architect for the State of Michigan. I am here
representing Mr. Silvestri regarding the proposed petition for the
proposed rezoning. The property, of course, is presently zoned RUF.
Our request is to go to condominiums, and we met with the Planning
Department and presented a proposed plan, which we feel would be in
keeping with the nature of the area. We strongly feel that it is not
disruptive in any way to the community in the area. As a matter of fact,
to the west there is a use which is commercial, and to the east there is
also some commercial property along that way. This would be in
keeping with single family homes in the area, and act as a transitional
type of property to the area. If I could show you the proposed plan at
this time. (Mr. Zate presented the plans) What we propose is to
develop the property into five buildings. We have, as noted by the
14634
Engineering Department, the right-of-way of Ann Arbor Trail, which
will be 60 feet. We have addressed that. The back of the buildings
,,goy would be 75 feet from the Ann Arbor Trail right-of-way. It would be
in keeping with the zoning ordinance on the left and the right and in the
back. The property would be single family homes. There would be 18
of them, composed of the five buildings, which again would give it
character. It is a very fine piece of land. It is a very nice piece of land
that promotes itself very nicely as a residential type of structure
situation. We have the driveway away from the existing house over
here so there would not be any driveway facing the property here. All
the houses which are proposed would be 1350 sq. ft. They would all
have two-car garages. They would all have driveways so there would
be places for additional parking on the site. They would act as single
family homes in essence. It would be a good, positive addition to the
community. If there are any questions you would like to ask. (He
presented the elevation plans) The entire exterior of the buildings
would be brick. There would be no siding. We would make each
individual unit a distinctive kind of front so they wouldn't look like row
houses. Each one would have character and each one would be
identifiable, and neat and clean and have a positive effect on the
community and an addition to the community keeping in the residential
character of the property.
*Mr. Nagy entered the meeting.
Nifty
Mr. Morrow: We realize this is zoning but if there is some information you could
share with us at this time, I would appreciate it. Do you plan to have
basements or partial basements?
Mr. Zate: Full basements.
Mr. Morrow: You indicated 18 units. This would be home ownership by the people
as opposed to apartments?
Mr. Zate: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: If you were to develop the site R-1, which seems to be what a number
of the houses are in the area, how many units could you get on that
acreage in an R-1 classification?
Mr. Zate: I would have to refer that to Mr. Shane. I don't know the exact
number.
Mr. Shane: Approximately 12 housing sites on the property. Approximately 4 per
acre on an R-1 site.
14635
Mr. Morrow: So we are talking about a gain of six families in this configuration. You
,,,mo, said it was set back 75 feet?
Mr. Zate: Seventy-five feet from the future right-of-way. Again, what we wanted
to do is try to make a community effect out of it so all the traffic is
internal so we don't have it external. The pieces behind would be
facing off to Hines Park and would have a super view of that. It is a
lovely site without getting into, again, internally rather than externally
so it would be self-contained units. They would all have their own
patios so they would be very attractive.
Mr. Morrow: You could develop more intensely in this area under an RC if you chose
to?
Mr. Zate: I suppose under RC they would allow us up to 10 to an acre so we
could get almost 40 units. We are not interested in that.
Mr. Morrow: I know we can't condition anything based on what we hear tonight.
Mr. Zate: Incidentally, Mr. Silvestri and his brother do own the property. This is
not an option deal subject to the rezoning. They do own the property.
They would like very much to proceed with the project. They do live
in the community in Livonia. They are residents of Livonia, and
therefore rather than perhaps the intrusion we just heard about where
you are intruding into the property, I think we are retaining the
residential character of the property.
Mr. Piercecchi: I realize we are not going to pass on the site plan tonight but I would
like a review, you said 1350 sq. ft. and all brick?
Mr. Zate: That is correct.
Mrs. Blomberg: I would like to know what would the price range be of these condos?
Mr. Zate: I think about $150,000.
Gino Silvestri, Silvestri Building Company: I want to point out maybe a lot of people
around the community can't foresee what exactly would go up there. I
believe this piece was zoned a few years ago for apartments, maybe
three to four-story apartment complexes. We want to go in and put all
ranches, which flows into the community, not like two-story. It would
give a very nice effect.
Mr. Engebretson: John, has this property ever had such a zoning as he described?
14636
Mr. Nagy: There have been proposals but nothing has passed.
`..
Mr. Engebretson: So the zoning that exists, has been there.
Mr. Nagy: From township days.
Mr. Zate: He was in error.
Mr. Alanskas: In essence you are saying it has very nice frontage but the view from
Ann Arbor Trail, we will be seeing the rear of the buildings with the
patios.
Mr. Zate: We propose to landscape it in such a way so that two things happen.
The people here can still have privacy and it can be an attractive
situation rather than a bunch of garage doors facing the street.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say landscape, would all the rear of the building be hidden
from view?
Mr. Zate: That is our intention to landscape in such a way that it is, in fact, not
visible to give them privacy.
Mr. Alanskas: With tall trees?
Mr. Zate: Yes with tall trees and berms. We would work with the Planning
Department to make sure these things are done that way so we would
enhance the property and make it desirable. I know people wouldn't
want to live there if in fact it is not desirable.
Mrs. Blomberg: Mr. Nagy, our tax base is set up on our SEV value. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mrs. Blomberg: Even a condo is the same as a home?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Any other information you want to add?
Mr. Zate: We will be happy to answer any of your questions.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this proposed zoning change.
14637
Mark Jacobsen, 35585 Ann Arbor Tr.: That is directly across the street on Ann Arbor
Trail from the eastern end of this development. I would like to go on
Nos. record as being opposed to it, and my main concern is because of the
extra traffic above and beyond what we have now in the neighborhood.
Basically I disagree with the petitioner about the effects of the multiple
family dwellings that he is proposing being the same as residential
dwellings. They are two different things as far as I am concerned. I am
sure, since you have two different zoning classifications, you believe
the same thing. That is about the only thing I have to say.
Mr. Engebretson: Could you elaborate a little more sir on what your concerns about
traffic are with 18 residential units?
Mr. Jacobsen: Basically the way I see it is if you have a house, you have one driveway
with one or two cars coming out of each driveway. If you have an
apartment complex or condominium complex, you have traffic lining up
to all spill out on the road at the same place.
Mr. Engebretson: How are habits of condominium-type residences different than habits of
individual private home owners?
Mr. Jacobsen: I am not saying they are different types of people. What I am saying is
they are coming out of the condominium complex all at the same place.
They are principally using one driveway whereas we all have individual
driveways.
Mr. Engebretson: Right, and I understand it now.
Mr. Morrow: Just to follow up on that, I would assume the developer would be
through the platting process and it is quite likely that if there were
single family homes there they would be coming out one or two drives.
Mr. Engebretson: John, would that be a site plan or a plat?
Mr. Nagy: It would be a site plan.
Mr. Morrow: I was talking about if it was a conventional subdivision, you would still
have the same stacking problem coming out of a subdivision.
Mr. Nagy: That is true.
Mr. Engebretson: You would most likely face the same thing but rather than 18 units you
would have 12 units.
14638
James Blaskiewicz, 35589 Ann Arbor Tr.: My home is directly across from this proposal,
and I wish to address the traffic problem first. My neighbor wasn't
quite clear on what we are talking about. If you look at the property
that is across from this, there is a school with a large playground area
directly across from where this driveway would be. You are looking at
approximately 18 units with 1 1/2 cars per unit. You are looking at 30
to 40 cars coming out of this area from this driveway across from this
playground. I understand also that condominiums and apartments have
both been proposed on this property site before and have been turned
down several times. You are going to find that many of the residents in
the area are opposed to this. There was a petition presented to the
Council already. I didn't have a chance to sign it. I would have signed
it if it would have been presented to me. I think you will find that most
of the homes in this area are all ranch. They have large lots and they all
follow along Ann Arbor Trail. The residents are not interested in
having the"large project"like this put into the area. The site itself is
heavily wooded in the back and adds to the area and adds to the
property values. We believe that if this were built it would actually
detract from some of the homes in the area.
Mr. Engebretson: How would you feel sir if it were developed in single family homes in
the R-1 zoning district?
Mr. Blaskiewicz: I have no problem with single family homes.
Mr. Engebretson: So it is the condominium classification that bothers you?
Mr. Blaskiewicz: The condominium and the amount of residences, 18 vs. 10 or 12. Most
of the homes here are rather spread out and not on top of each other.
There is a good deal of distance between the homes. This type of
project here, they are more on top of each other.
Mr. Morrow: I am glad you followed through because I was given the impression he
didn't want the property developed at all.
Mr. Blaskiewicz: Single homes, I don't have any objection to that.
Mr. Morrow: Even with the traffic concerns?
Mr. Blaskiewicz: I don't think it would be as heavy as with this. I do wish to point out
that in the past apartments have been proposed, condominiums have
been proposed, and it has been turned down before. The residents are
not in favor of it.
14639
Donald Jones, 35627 Ann Arbor Tr,: I am also directly across from this. I would oppose
this project just based, not to be redundant, but just based on traffic. It
is only single lane to the east and single lane to the west, as all of you
know, and the traffic on Ann Arbor Trail is just horrendous at times.
With the added quantity, we are talking numbers here, I just think it
would be too much for Ann Arbor Trail. Not to be argumentative but I
question 12 single-family dwellings. My wife and I were talking about
it and it looks like six or seven 1/2 acre single family homes. I would
personally question 12.
Mr. Engebretson: We are not talking about 1/2 acre. We are talking about R-1, which is
across the street, which is the vast majority developed in that area.
That is four per acre, more or less, depending on how the roads are laid
out, etc. You can trust these guys. If they say it is 11 or 12, that is
probably what it is.
George Marlow, 35663 Ann Arbor Tr.: My number one concern is traffic. There is a lot
of traffic there and even though the Wayne County Sheriff is down at
Newburgh Road and the park, you should see the way these people
drive on that street. You are just asking to add more accidents to what
we already have and on that street from the curve to just east of this
proposed building site we have had a lot of car accidents, some very
serious ones.
Beth Barnett, 35639 Ann Arbor Tr.: This is right across from this. Again, the traffic is a
big problem. I have another question. How would it affect our
utilities? We have very low water pressure, tons of power outages. I
wonder if that would be a factor or not? The traffic is a big problem.
It is scary to turn into your driveway because people go up around the
side and there are no sidewalks that go all the way down Ann Arbor
Trail. People are biking and jogging and everything else on the side
and cars are running up and I just can't see so many people coming into
such a small area.
Mr. Engebretson: The problem is this traffic problem is universal, not just throughout
Livonia, but Oakland County I guess is even worse. I used to live near
this area and I traveled on Ann Arbor Road many years ago, back in the
60's, and I know what it was like then, and I am sure it is worse now
because where I live now is much worse than it was 20 years ago.
Ms. Barnett: It has grown. There are apartments on one side and condominiums
down the road along with a nursing home. How much of that do you
need in one area?
14640
Mr. Engebretson: The problem is when someone owns property and pays taxes on it, they
have the right to use the land and they have the right to petition for a
zoning change. That doesn't mean they are going to get it, but they
certainly have the right to be heard.
Ms. Barnett: Right. I am opposed to the condominiums but single family homes
would be all right.
Mr. Engebretson: Because of the fewer number of units?
Ms. Barnett: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: If there is no one else wishing to speak to this petition, we will give the
petitioner the last opportunity.
Mr. Zate: A few corrections if I may. The property, as our surveyor has
indicated, to us is actually 4.005 acres, and if you were to refer back to
the R-1 zone based on four units per acre, in fact, you would be able to
get 16 units not 12. What we are talking about is two units above what
could be in the R-1 zone. Interestingly enough, on the traffic situation,
the reason for the proposed widening of Ann Arbor Trail is for future
widening so they would take that space and increase the traffic
possibility so they could in fact control it. We have allowed for that.
That I would assume is the future of that area as far as Livonia is
t"' concerned, that they would in fact widen that area to create a safer
situation. Interestingly enough again, rather than have a series of 6-8-
12 driveways, one driveway at either end is easier to control and that
makes traffic a lot easier getting in and out. I can conceive of saying 6
or 8 or 12 houses along there, everybody waiting to make a left turn.
There is no way the traffic could handle that situation. One drive in,
one drive out, it is a heck of a lot better and a safer condition for traffic
control in that particular area. The development would only be two
more than it would be in an R-1 zone. It is still one-story units. We
are not intruding into the area with large or two-story homes. We are
trying to keep it so that it would have a very good profile and add to
the community. Therefore, we feel it would be a positive, not a
negative attitude, toward the community as a whole.
Linda Vanden Bossche, 35700 Ann Arbor Tr.: I have been there since 1978. I am in
favor of it. My mother is across the street. She was unable to be here
tonight. She is on the corner of Parent and Ann Arbor Tr. Her back
yard has been run into twice and our concern is having some kind of a
driveway and buildings there will slow the traffic down. The
condominiums on our west, you never see any problems there. They
see driveways, they slow down. They see an open field, off they go.
14641
The school buses go 50 mph down the street. My kids get picked up in
front of the greenhouse, and I have to tell them to stand back from the
%ow road. I do feel this would add to the community.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have any awareness madam of traffic problems at that existing
condominium or apartment project on either side of this?
Ms. Vanden Bossche: No I don't. We have put up floodlights on the west side of our
greenhouse and there have not been any accidents since. There is a
curve on the west side that was very dimly lit, and there was an
accident there two years ago in the fall and thank goodness there has
not been one since the lights were up.
Mr. Engebretson: When Mr. LaPine and I were out there this past weekend it was our
impression that both of those areas seemed to be quite serene. As a
matter of fact, there wasn't a lot of activity. There were cars parked
everywhere. I was just curious as to what your impression was because
we were there once for a short period of time and you are there a lot.
Ms. Vanden Bossche: It is a very nice place to live and that is why I think the plan here
will fit into the surroundings. It is not a massive two to three-story
apartment building, sticking out like a sore thumb kind of design.
Mike Rourke, 35540 Ann Arbor Tr.: This is the property on the eastern boundary of this
N"' proposed project. I realize the board has to hear all the petitions that
come before them but me and my neighbors thought we had gotten
through this sort of zoning petition in 1988 when the same property
and some property on the other side had been considered for a
condominium development. At that time it was ruled by the City
Council that future zoning should be single family dwelling with 1/2
acre lots. My main objection to this, and most of all the objections of
my neighbors, is that this is going to be a strain on the infrastructure,
on the utilities, on the sewers. What you are doing in effect is putting
18 families there, 18 utility users, people who drive vehicles, require
trash haulage, generate other various trash, etc. I would also question
the fact, we have no assurance this might become a rental property.
My father-in-law is a long-time resident of the condominium complex
over on Plymouth Road and he has seen, in the last several years,
several of the units in his area sold and bought for investment with
renters coming in, who more or less do not maintain the property to the
standards of the residents there. I have a problem with the traffic also.
I can hardly get out of my driveway half the time. I don't see where it
is going to be any easier with 18 households next door. I don't oppose
the development of property but it should be harmonious with the
desires of their neighbors, and I don't think that a development of this
14642
size is going to be in the interest of myself or my neighbors. I don't
have any children but my neighbors have several of the little guys. I
*ow don't think it is going to be a very good environment for them to see a
crowded area across the street from them. I would just like to read to
you from the minutes of the meeting of this board on November 22,
1988, it was "RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having
been held on October 18, 1988 on Petition 88-9-1-25 by K. M.
Phillipou and John Dalfonsi requesting to rezone property located on
the north side of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Wayne Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-7, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 88-9-1-25 be denied
for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning
represents spot zoning in the area which is contrary to good land use
planning. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to
and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the
proposed change of zoning represents an encroachment of multiple
family type zoning in a single family residential neighborhood. 4) That
there are no public utilities available to serve the subject site." This
was passed by roll call vote. As I recall the further hearings, it was
stated by Council members that perhaps the best way to insure that we
didn't have things like this coming forward again would be to zone
future use of this property as single family dwelling. This is what my
neighbors and I are asking you. We aren't saying we don't ever want
to see anything built there. We would just like to see single-family
`"' dwellings that more or less coincide with what we have there now. I
don't see where it is going to be any detriment to a builder putting
single-family homes in there because there have been developers of
property in the area for homes in excess of$200,000, which have been
built, and there are some very nice homes east of Wayne Road on Ann
Arbor Trail, which I understand go in the neighborhood of$150,000.
Now you could put some nice units in an area like that. I am sure that
would insure a decent profit. Of course, it kind of puts me in mind
when I hear builders telling me all the great things they are going to do
for the community and what they want to do for the benefit of
everybody, it reminds me of people like Ivan Bolsky and Michael
Milken that always wanted to enhance their own value and increase
profitability and all the wanted to do is bring the price of stock up so
they could sell it at a profit and forget about the company. So I don' t
put too much stock in a lot of these proposals. In closing,I would like
to mention the previous speaker has a vested interest in speaking for
this project. They were the former owners of the property that sold it
to the builder. That is all I have to say. My neighbors and I wish you
to act on your previous findings. The situation has not improved. It is
the same or worse as it was in 1988 so we ask that you find it
consistent with that.
14643
Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to belabor this point or dwell on it but R-7 obviously was
at one time meant to define multiple residential like condominiums or
apartments. John, do you recall the specifics of what occurred at that
time?
Mr. Nagy: It was strictly a multiple family apartment type project.
Mr. Engebretson: How intense was it?
Mr. Nagy: Again, I don't believe they actually had a detailed site plan.
Frances Silvestri: I am in favor of this proposal. Some of the items that have been
brought out like the traffic, we are going to have deceleration lanes at
both ends. I think that will curb most of the traffic instead of having
individual driveways. Also, these units are going to be 1350 sq. ft.,
which are probably the average or even larger than most of the homes
in that area. I think that would add to the property value. If we put
individual homes there, it would have to be on 1/2 acre lots, and I am
sure the price would be around $200,000. The houses in that area are
not that high in value. We are trying to keep in that area and trying to
improve it. Also, what the last gentleman said, R-7, I believe it is at
least 10 to 15 units per acre. We are asking approximately 4 1/2 units
per acre here. We are not going for the full amount of ten or more. I
think we are trying to be very reasonable and trying to keep the project
in good perspective. The condos will be approximately $150,000, and
I think that will add to everyone's property value.
Tom Vanden Bossche: What Mike was referring to was 2 1/2 acres to the east of him that
the landowner at that time was under duress, she wanted to get rid of
the land. She had a proposal. At that time all the City had for other
than residential single family was R-7 multiple so when the Planning
Commission would allow that they could have put a high-rise up so it
went through the Planning Commission and it went to the Council, and
the Council didn't want to let a high-rise go up. That is
understandable. What these people are doing, they bought the land
from me. It was never in front of this board. It was never in front of
the City. It was for sale. It has always been for sale. It was for sale
since the day I bought it in 1978 but we didn't pull any permits. We
didn't pull any plans. What they want to do is put 18 units on four
acres. I could give them another acre and we could get 30 single-
family houses but I don't want to do that. I want to stay on my six
acres I have left with the greenhouse and farm and ponies and
everything. What they are going to put in are attached single-family
houses, single story, not two story. It is only going to be 18. It is not
14644
going to overdo anything. If we took the 70 feet and if they widened
the roads, then I have to sell my greenhouse. I don't know why they
are planning on widening the roads. I would like to know.
Mr. Zate: I guess I can close on the fact that listening to what the gentleman said
about the 1988 proposal where there weren't enough utilities, I know
there is a sewer; there is storm water; there is electricity. All the
facilities are there and they have been put on apparently since that time
and so they can, in fact, accommodate everything that is being
proposed for the use of the property. There is no question that we
have to maintain the requirements of the Planning Commission. We are
not looking for waivers. We are not looking for any set asides so that
we don't meet the ordinance. As far as engineering is concerned, we
certainly have to comply with that. We have taken a very important
step to comply with the design of the unit so it would be compatible
with the community and make a good and honest appearance within the
community. I sort of resent being compared to Mr. Bolsky and some
other people. I don't like that. I think we are digressing from what the
situation is. We want to add to the community, not take away.
Mr. Engebretson: We would agree that is inappropriate and unfair, and with that I am
going to close the public hearing.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
*ow Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-12-1-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#1-4-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 on Petition 95-12-1-30 by Gino
Silvestri requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Ann
Arbor Trail between Wayne and Levan Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
32 from RUF to R-C, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 95-12-1-30 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan designation of medium density land use for the
subject property;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
consistent with other similar developments along Ann Arbor Trail;
14645
3) That the subject property has locational characteristics which are
conducive to land uses permitted by the proposed R-C zoning
district;
4) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543,
as amended.
Mrs. Blomberg: I would like to clarify why I am approving this. I see a deceleration
lane which should help traffic. I see the possibility if we zone this to R-
1, there is the possibility of approximately 24 cluster homes being built
in that same area. I think the 18 condos would be a lot nicer in the
area. Also, with the price range at $150,000, an R-1 house in a similar
area might go for $130,000 or $140,000. I think these would be nicer
homes.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-12-1-31 by
Rudolf J. Holz and Clinton J. Holz requesting to rezone property located on
the south side of Beacon Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX
Railroad in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to R-7.
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
Beacon Road is to be improved with a 9" reinforced concrete pavement
(along with a related storm sewer system) pursuant to the provisions of
Special Assessment District 376. It is expected that this work will be
completed in the spring of 1996. The proposed road improvement will
extend from Stark Road to the westerly line of the subject petition area.
There are no sanitary sewers and water mains readily available to
service the subject site. Further, a public street dedication should be
considered to prevent land locking the parcels to the east of the multi-
family site.
14646
We have also received a letter from Paul Desrosiers, Vice President of
`411., Tri Civic Subdivision Association, Alden Village, stating: Regarding
the proposed rezoning of the property east of Stark on the south side of
Beacon, we must voice our opposition to the variance. The proposed
townhouses are totally out of character with anything in the area.
Some of our concerns are already expressed by Engineering in their
letter, but in addition to those we are not in favor of multifamily
housing, and they are two story structures making them visually
unattractive to families in the area. The site plan itself worries us with
the existing house only three feet from the parking lot. Also the
dumpsters, will any of them be placed on the south side, creating a
noise problem for the families on Wadsworth. The plan also calls for a
seventy five foot treed buffer, but after final grade will it still be a full
75' heavily treed? As a final thought we worry that approval of this
rezoning would set a precedent in the area for future development of
this type which we would find objectionable.
The department has also received two telephone calls opposing this
rezoning petition, one from Pamela Jones of 33922 Wadsworth and one
from Veronica Williamson of 33960 Wadsworth.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and give us your reasons for
making this request.
Pat Smith, Brashear, Tangora& Spence, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia: I am appearing
for Chuck Tangora who is away on vacation. We are here on behalf of
Clinton and Rudolf Holz, father and son, who are the petitioners on this
particular matter, and as was stated to you they wish to put in
townhouses. As stated, they are seeking a rezoning from R-5 to R-7,
which would be multiple family. They are looking to put in
townhouses. I think you all have in your packets smaller drawings of
these buildings, but it would consist of two buildings. The buildings
would have 12 units each for a total of 24 units. They are two-
bedroom units. They all have their own garage. The area is a heavily
treed area, which was mentioned. The plan is, there is some very thick
hedges and trees to the east. Those are going to stay there. There is a
heavily treed area to the south. Those will stay, and there is another lot
to the west that is owned by the petitioner, which they are not asking
for rezoning so that would be staying R-5. It too is a heavily treed area
that backs up to the houses immediately to the west. To the north is
industrial zoning and there is a business there known as, I believe,
Tooling & Equipment International. The plan the petitioner has put
before you is to try to use this area as a buffer zone between the M-1
zoning and the R-5 zoning so you would have multiple family zoning
14647
between the two. Also, to keep as much privacy there as they can, the
petitioners have set aside approximately $10,000 per lot adjoining to
'r make sure that they keep their privacy. For instance they would put in
a row of cedar trees immediately to the south. They have talked to a
number of the neighbors and have had some concerns which they
would try and meet. One of them was to help someone with a hookup
with a sewer. So they are conscious of the neighbors and they would
like to help the neighbors wherever they can. They will put in whatever
landscaping is needed, including that row of cedar trees to the south,
but there is currently a great deal of landscaping or trees in the area.
They also frankly will be moving some of those trees and will be
offering them to the residents who want them. They are going to try to
work with the people in the area. As to the project itself, I know we
are not here for site plan approval, but I know you like to know a little
bit about what they are doing. As I said they are two-bedroom units.
They have a great room with a walk-in area so there are only about six
steps up to the two-bedroom area. There are a couple of steps down
into a utility area. The plan for each of them is the same and in your
packets you all have an outline of that plan. The outside will be brick,
stucco in the upper area, and then on your plans you will see there is an
existing building. That is a masonry building that is currently occupied
by the younger Mr. Holz. That would become a clubhouse for the unit
and it would have a matching brick veneer. The price range of those
apartments would be about $650. That is their projected range. There
is a kitchen, a dinette, a half bath on the lower area; a great room, an
utility room and two bedrooms and a full bath in the upper area. I will
pass around an aerial view that shows the heavily treed area. (She
presented the plans)
Mr. Morrow: To the staff, on single family residential, what is the normal height of
the room?
Mr. Nagy: For one story 18 feet.
Mr. Morrow: So if I am reading the plans correct Mrs. Smith, that is about the same
height of yours? Even though you have a loft area, it is still about the
same as single family?
Mrs. Smith: That is correct. It is very much like a single family.
Mr. Morrow: You did make an attempt to talk to the neighbors about your project?
Mrs. Smith: Yes. They talked to several of the neighbors. One neighbor in
particular was interested in making it senior housing. We can't make it
senior housing per se, but the price range would be good for seniors. It
14648
is not quite as low as what senior housing in Livonia offers, where I
understand they have a waiting list of 900, but it might accommodate
`m. some of them. The petitioners liked the idea of serving the elderly and
would have a discount for senior citizens should they want to rent
there. That was their thought. If they could attract seniors, they would
like to do that.
Mr. Morrow: I just made that comment because the petitioner is not under any
obligation to check with the surrounding area, but I always like to
compliment people that do that.
Mrs. Smith: Mr. Holz has owned apartment buildings. He currently owns one in
Madison Heights. It is a 48-unit building. He has had that for about 15
years. He had one in Roseville for 15 years that was 38 units, and he
tells me if any of you want to visit them, you will find a very-well-
kept-up building. He prides himself on maintaining the exterior and
landscaping of the building.
Mr. Alanskas: Looking at your plan, it is a one car garage per unit?
Mr. Holz: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: If they had more than one car, where would they park?
Mr. Holz: In the driveways.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this request.
William McEvoy, 33900 Wadsworth: If I understood right, this is 2.72 acres?
Mr. Engebretson: 2.60 acres.
Mr. McEvoy: They are going to put 24 units into 2 1/2 acres? My lot is more than
3/4 of an acre. If you compare it to even the smaller lots existing there,
about five parcels would be all you could get out of it.
Mr. Engebretson: It is a different zoning district. That is what this is all about.
Mr. McEvoy: There are several u-shaped single family homes around this area that
would be set right into the center of approximately 14 homes, and you
are going to have 24 units, almost double what we have. There is no
road for it. They are going to add a road and leave 75 feet of trees. I
can't see it. It looks like it is going to be crowded to me. Someone
said something about the parking they had, one car parking. I didn't
14649
see where additional parking would come in and still leave all those
trees that are existing there now. I just don't see it.
Phil Zimmer, 34055 Wadsworth: First of all I am opposed to this idea. I think this
qualifies as spot zoning in my opinion. You mentioned here it is
surrounded by single family and this street, in particular, Wadsworth.
You are going to double the amount of people living in this
neighborhood. I don't think it is a good plan for the neighborhood. I
have been a resident of Livonia my whole life. My father sat on this
panel for quite a while. I don't think it is consistent with the
neighborhood. There are not apartments within a square mile of here
that I know of. It is right next to light industrial properties. I don't
consider this a good buffer living on this street. I don't think it phases
in. Perhaps a lower density, some other type of use there. Residential
yes, but apartments no. I don't think it is fair to the residents of this
neighborhood who have bought some of these properties and made
quite a bit of improvements. They are mostly older people and young
families who have spent a lot of money putting improvements into these
properties, like myself. I am not interested in having perhaps upwards
of 50 to 60 people living there, flooding the neighborhood of less than
that size. I don't think it is a good plan.
Julie McEvoy: I am Bill McEvoy's wife. I have a couple of questions. I wondered
`w about the square footage of the apartments.
Mr. Engebretson: It is really premature to get into that at this meeting. We are trying to
get a feel of the flavor of the rezoning change.
Mrs. McEvoy: The reason for my question is to get an idea of how many people in
each unit. I really think that multiple family rental units would violate
the integrity of our neighborhood. People have worked very hard to
improve their homes here. There is nothing like it around. Traffic, we
have cars coming off Wadsworth. Stark Road is heavily, heavily
trafficked and I know 24 cars, or 48 cars, does not sound like a lot but
it certainly is precedent setting for our neighborhood as well as Alden
Village on the west side of Stark Road. I am also opposed to it as are
many of our neighbors, and as was stated there aren't that many of us
to give a tremendous show. At the very least I would ask you to table
your decision in light of the fact we would like to see some of the other
properties Mr. Holz has developed. I do have a question to them. I
wonder who might be managing. How are they being funded? Is this a
conventional market or are there tax incentives to developing this
property?
14650
Mr. Engebretson: If the petitioner is in a position to make a very brief statement on that,
we will allow him but we are really starting to get pretty far removed
from where we should be.
Mr. Holz: My wife is the manager of the current project we have in Madison
Heights. We build them, we own them, and we operate them, and as
far as the way we operate them, we have been told by the City of
Madison Heights that we have the best maintained project in Madison
Heights. Anyone wanting to see that, can see what we have done.
There were no trees on there. These trees are now 30 feet tall. There
are two rows of evergreens, Norway Spruce, lining the entire project
all the way around. We will do anything to please the neighbors in
trying to make this a nice development. As you can see, there is a wide
greenbelt all the way around. We had a slightly bigger project in mind,
but because we talked to the neighbors, we responded and reduced it
from three buildings to two buildings. If anyone has a suggestion on
how we can make this thing work in developing this as R-5 lots, we
would be glad to do that, but currently you could put four lots in there
under that zoning but it would cost between $225,000 and $250,000 to
put in the streets, utilities and all the other things, not counting the
land. It would be roughly $50,000 development cost per lot. We
cannot do this. The next best thing is a buffer between those two
would be what we have proposed. If you put single family homes in
there, then these would be facing the industrial building there. Then
,"" these people would eventually be very unhappy. I know this is a
dilemma. I know the people have concerns about that but we will be
leaving a strip of undisturbed land 75 feet wide on one side and 101
feet on the other side, and this is really in response to some of the
things we heard when we listened to the people.
Mrs. McEvoy: As you said we are talking about rezoning, and once it is rezoned then
people may petition again to add more units.
Mr. Engebretson: There is some protection there madam. If the zoning were successful,
the only way the property could be developed would be to go through
a site plan approval process, which involves a process pretty much like
this one.
Mrs. McEvoy: I understand that but once it is rezoned, it is rezoned.
Mr. Engebretson: That is correct.
Olga Bender, 12000 Stark Road: I think that I must have been the one that led them to
believe that senior citizens should be back there. I woke up the other
night after I had talked with the gentleman here, and it scared me. I
14651
though 48 more cars. Now that is double and there is no outlet but the
one outlet. I am on lot 121. When I first moved into Livonia in 1969
they put that big Stark Road in front of me. I didn't have to pay for it
but I get my half of the snow in my drive. I don't have a lead up to the
side road, so I understand I wouldn't have to pay for that either, but I
don't see where you say it will only be 48 people, that is two people to
a house. I can understand them both having cars and one road down
there. I don't think there is any parking on my side of Beacon. When
we first moved in they were allowed to put that little factory in there.
Now we have big trucks. I just don't think after I woke up during the
night and thought about it, it is going to be a good thing.
Carol Bender, 12000 Stark Road: The thing I am worried about right now is parking.
They have a garage, one car. What do they do with the other 24 cars?
Mr. Engebretson: I think the gentleman said they would go in the driveway. That is what
I heard him say.
Mrs. Bender: Right now he is going to tear down the forest and that is where all the
75 cars that come in for the factory butt up against the forest. Where
are they going to go? There is not going to be any more woods there
for half of those people to butt up against. They are actually out in the
road. What is going to happen with those cars? There are 75 cars each
shift and half of them are going to have no parking. They are going to
's'`'' end up out beside my house parked on the pavement and it is going to
be very congested back there.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have a parking deficiency there? Not on this property
but on the factory property.
Harold Londy, 34104 Wadsworth: I am opposed to it. I back right up to it. I have lived
here for over 16 years. I put a lot of money in my house. Most of the
people on this street have redone their houses. They look nice. We all
know one another. There are only about 18 homes. What we need
over there, if anything, are neighbors not tenants. We don't need
apartments. We need one-family dwellings because there would be too
much traffic in the area. You have a dead end street and then
industrial. Travel down Stark Road in the afternoon. It is very hard to
get out on that street. I am opposed to it.
Ed Bender, 12000 Stark Road: I have lived there for 25 years. All the lots in the
neighborhood are 1/2 acre or 3/4 acre lots. They are all treed with 100
foot poplar trees. Besides the factory up there, this is just out of
character for this whole neighborhood.
14652
Margaret Barsch, 34026 Wadsworth: I don't believe we should have that there. They
have industry all around us except for our little street, and sometimes
we can hardly turn left out of our street because of the traffic backed
up from Plymouth Road because of the traffic during the week. If
people live there, we are going to have more traffic. At least on the
weekends, we have quiet weekends because all the industry has gone
home. If those apartments go there and there are children, where are
the children going to play? There is no park, no street. They can't play
across by the factory. Me and my husband are both very much
opposed to this.
Cliff Rockwell, President of Tooling & Equipment International: We own the property
adjacent to and north of the petitioned property. Where we would
prefer to have the property stay the way it is, it is a nice wooded buffer
area between us and the neighbors on Wadsworth, we also realize the
individuals that own that property have the right to develop it the way
they see fit. Our concerns are similar to the neighbors as we see the
potential density. The children moving into this area will they use our
parking lot and our property as a playground? We had the problem in
the past with the low density around us. With that much density we
have a concern. I also heard in the introduction it made mention of
Beacon Road being paved. Currently it is a dirt road very poorly kept,
and we are probably the biggest culprit. We have tried to find ways to
maintain this road and we finally came to an agreement with the City,
''iw prior to knowing about this development. We thought we were the
only ones with vested interest in that road so we agreed with the City
on a certain price we were willing to pay, and I believe we are the only
property owners that will be paying to have this road paved. Our
concern, of course, is that we will be paving this road and our
stockholders are going to be very upset with me, because I am the one
that agreed to it, when they see it looks like I developed my neighbor's
property. So I have a problem with that, but my biggest concern would
be if the property is finally developed, that there is some kind of buffer
zone that could protect our property from this development property
from other than just cosmetics. Right now the woods seems to help
keep the children in the area from playing on our property. If there
could be a buffer area in there, other than cosmetic, to keep the
children from using our property, it would be appreciated. Then our
concerns would be after paving this road so we could have access and
not bother the City with constantly grading the road, then it becomes
an accessible parking lot for this development. It seems to be a heavy
price to pay to develop that road for excessive parking for this
development. Other than that, we believe that the Holzs are well-
intended people and we don't intend to stand in the way of their
development. We are not here to speak against it. We are just here to
14653
speak to the concerns about the density and how will the density be
controlled.
\" Mrs. Smith: Very briefly, a berm and a fence are planned to the north so that would
separate the property from the industrial, and there is room for parking
on the site plan.
Richard Housholder, 33921 Beacon: I am one of the ones here that is going to be a
stickler on this. I have been there for about 30 years now. I am back
there where there is no road going in. I would like to start out with
some of these things that some people have not discussed. Right now
we have about 150 cars and trucks per day coming into Beacon Street
right there at the corner from the factory. I am the only one living in
back here. I have a right-of-way easement, 60 foot over all the
property coming back to me. They are planning on putting the berm on
part of that 60-foot right-of-way. They are putting a building on top of
my right-of-way.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, I appreciate having this information but I do want to excellerate it
because we are getting very, very far removed from the zoning issue
here. It is not that your comments aren't important. It is the wrong
time. If the zoning change occurs, then these issues are very pertinent.
Mr. Housholder: They can't change the zoning here at this point.
Mr. Engebretson: We can change the zoning with easements.
Mr. Housholder: I own the easement.
Mr. Engebretson: Does he own the easement John?
Mr. Nagy: Easements are private contracts. You have an easement interest. The
zoning ordinance of the City of Livonia is the municipal ordinance, and
the City therefore, from a municipal standpoint, has the right to rezone
the property in terms of land use requirements. That doesn't negate the
easement you have if, in fact, you have an easement interest. All we
are simply doing is saying from a land use standpoint the zoning should
be adjusted, but you still have any right to any easement interest you
might have on that property. Our action, whether we approve it or not,
will not have any effect on your easement interest.
Mr. Housholder: What you are saying is that I don't really own that 60 foot of property.
14654
Mr. Nagy: What I am saying is you don't have title to the property. You have an
easement interest across the property. You don't own the underlying
*ft.• real estate. You have the right to cross.
Mr. Housholder: I have a road right-of-way to cross the property. You are correct sir.
Mr. Engebretson: But that doesn't equate to ownership. Again, it is not that we are
disinterested in your interest. The problem is we are getting awfully far
removed from zoning issues here.
Mr. Housholder: In order to rezone this you are talking about putting multiple homes in
here.
Mr. Engebretson: What we are talking about doing tonight, we are talking about
considering a zoning change. We are not saying we are going to do it,
but if it would happen, then the property owner would have the right to
come back with a plan to develop the property as has been depicted
here, which is only conceptual at this point. This is not a commitment.
There are no conditions here on the zoning if it is successful. It doesn't
say this is what he is going to develop. It is what he could. It is an
example of what could happen. The zoning change may take place. It
may not.
Mr. Housholder: Then I am opposed to it 100%.
Homeowner: I live in that one little tiny house. I moved from Detroit to here. I was
forced into the position where I owned a home and they built
apartments abutting my home. I know what happened there and I lived
in a section of Detroit just east of Telegraph Road so I am not inner-
Detroit. I moved here because of the fact to me it was privacy, it was
quiet, and there wasn't all the congestion. Though you try to get good
renters in, it doesn't necessarily mean they stay good renters, and the
property upkeep doesn't stay nice like the day the doors opened. I
watched it happen. I left it. Now I find myself in the same position. I
am a homemaker. I just know some emotion and it has become my
refuge and my quiet and my peace. As I stand on my porch I see the
Detroit News building. I also see the factory, but the factory has been
a good neighbor to us. I also see a lot of lights, a lot of cars, but we
don't need any more congestion in there. It is hard to get in and out on
many different occasions. I have learned to appreciate the trees on the
property. There are also endangered species of wildflowers in there
and unfortunately I am very much oriented toward plant life and botany
and I have learned to appreciate it. I wish I could fill you in on more
with legal details to express what I feel but this is what I feel. I oppose
it.
14655
Mr. Engebretson: You do understand that whether the land is developed at this time or
°tow sometime in the future, it is likely to not stay the same. You do
understand that don't you?
Homeowner: Yes I do but right now there is a lot of water where the back of our
property doesn't drain because we are low at the back but high in front,
and just a year ago, they put thousands of dollars in building two
additional roads and making improvements and we are on well water,
and it is beautiful back there and I would just like to see it stay that
way.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Egebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-12-1-31 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#1-5-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 on Petition 95-12-1-31 by Rudolf
J. Holz and Clinton J. Holz requesting to rezone property located on the
south side of Beacon Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to R-7, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-12-
1-31 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the developing
character of the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a significant
increase in density in the area which is predominantly single family
residential oriented;
3) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann: I have difficulty in this one because after listening to the representative
from the factory to the north and the family there, I don't believe this
could ever be developed in an R-5 that it is currently in because of the
traffic, because of the number of trucks, the cars, everything else that
was described to us by the neighbors. We need some type of buffer
between the factory and homes. I am not saying I believe this
r..
14656
particular site plan is the one that should be developed but I do believe
we need to look at, and I believe that rental houses might be a proper
buffer between the two. We cannot stop this property from being
developed and to me it appears to be a reasonable type of buffer
between the factory and the residential sub. It would tend to keep the
residential nature somewhat to the neighbors on the south yet be in a
position to build some type of buffer to the factory on the north.
Mrs. Blomberg: I too feel this was a good proposal basically but I think the location is a
bad location for it. I feel high density rental units next to industrial
would not be conducive to seniors. One thing there are stairs proposed
on this and seniors usually don't like it where there are stairs. Again,
families might rent with two bedrooms but it doesn't seem appropriate
right next to industrial.
Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to comment briefly that I think the density of the
proposal is what causes me to find it difficult to support the petition. I
do think, as Mr. McCann has pointed out, a good case could be made
for some kind of a buffer area but not this dense so I will be voting in
favor of the denying resolution, but I am not wanting to give out the
impression that I think there is going to be R-5 homes built there
because I know there won't be, and I think we should get prepared for
some other kind of residential construction, but perhaps less dense than
this proposal, depending on what happens to this one.
Nr..
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT:
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 95-11-2-32 by
Takashi Nagashima on behalf of Koyama Shoten of Michigan, Inc.
requesting to utilize an SDM license in connection with an existing store
located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and
Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8.
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 office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
14657
received a letter from the Inspection Department stating no problems or
deficiencies were found to exist.
"*` * Mrs. Blomberg left the meeting
Mr. Engebrtson: Is the petitioner here?
Takashi Nagashima: I am the owner of Koyama Shoten. I am requesting an SDM license
so I can sell Japanese wine and beer and cooking wine.
Mr. LaPine: Are you only going to be selling Japanese beer and wine or domestic
also?
Mr. Nagashima: Only Japanese.
Mr. LaPine: John, do we have any SDM licenses in that shopping center?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. LaPine: He could sell domestic beer and wine?
Mr. Nagy: That is true.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
F"'. Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-11-2-32 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#1-6-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 on Petition 95-11-2-32 by
Takashi Nagashima on behalf of Koyama Shoten of Michigan, Inc.
requesting to utilize an SDM license in connection with an existing store
located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and
Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-11-2-32 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
14658
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Blomberg
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-12-2-33
by Gallagher Group requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto
repair center on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
between Six Mile Road and Ravine Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11.
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 office 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 objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter
from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or
problems were found: 1. The required front yard setback for this zoning
district is 60', provided is 42', deficient by 18'. 2. The plans do not
provide sufficient detail to determine if the provided parking meets the
requirements of Section 18.38 (29) of the Zoning Ordinance. Two
spaces for each repair bay, plus one space for each employee is
required.
We have also received a letter from James E. Sica, President of Jimmies
Rustics, Inc. 29500 West Six Mile stating: Regretfully, I cannot attend
this meeting to personally state my views, but it is important enough for
me to express them in letter form. Art Eliasen and AE Standard have
been nothing but an asset to the Livonia community since he took over
that business. It is a clean, well run and reputable establishment. I
have thoroughly examined his plans for expansion and believe it to be
not only attractive but also needed. Replacing that old dilapidated
house with a brand new automotive service center can be nothing but a
plus. The plans I feel are very well thought out with interior vehicle
14659
entrances instead of bay doors and vehicle parking in the rear. I hope
the planning commission elects to approve these plans to improve the 6
'gar Mile & Middlebelt corner and grants the use waiver for the service
center.
Art Eliasen: My wife and myself own the property. We bought it sometime ago.
We feel it is necessary now to develop it because of the increase in
business at Six Mile and Middlebelt. We need the space to expand.
Mr. Engebretson: So this is an expansion of your existing business there?
Mr. Eliasen: No it would be separate. There wouldn't be any driveways connecting
but we would run that also and still keep the base at the station open
for minor repairs, tire repairs and oil changes.
Dick Gallagher, 29991 Munger: I think everyone here has seen the plans we put together.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you going to review the site plans sir?
(Mr. Gallagher presented the plans to the Commission.)
Mr. Gallagher: The building is set back approximately 40 feet from the road even with
Phillips Plumbing. We are trying to make it attractive and line up
everything up front. All of our parking is in the rear. We have on this
'"" area up front the landscaping. I feel it will look a lot nicer that way.
Mr. Engebretson: It appears that the parking is all well defined there. Is that the drawing
the Inspection Department had available?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes this has all been available to everybody.
Mr. Nagy: I think that because the Inspection Department doesn't have an interior
floor plan that actually delineates the bays within the building, they are
at a loss to verify the fact that there are only 7 bays which would
require the 14 parking spaces that they are looking for. What we will
advise the Bureau of Inspection , of course, is that when they will
actually issue the building permit for the building, at that time they
would have all the detail on the floor plans, and that they would
actually satisfy themselves that there are in fact 7 repair bays as
indicated.
Mr. Engebretson: Would it be your opinion since Mr. Eliasen who has worked with us on
a number of occasions in the past, as long as we have a clear
understanding of what his plans are, on that basis would the proposal
meet the ordinance?
14660
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Gallagher: We do have a floor plan established and it will verify our parking
requirements.
(Mr. Gallagher then presented the landscape plan)
Mr. Engebretson: What is your percentage of landscaping?
Mr. Gallagher: About 15%.
(Mr. Gallagher then presented the elevation plans)
Mr. Piercecchi: Will that landscaping have irrigation?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. It is noted on the plan.
Mr. Morrow: Can that block be seen from Six Mile?
Mr. Gallagher: Not really. Also, the back portion of this building is hidden by the
service station and also Phillips Plumbing.
Mr. Morrow: I can understand the need for block because it is shielded. Is there a
Nifty, big difference in price between what I call a regular cinder block and a
split face block? Would it be a hardship to use something like that?
Mr. Gallagher: About 40 cents.
Mr. Morrow: Would it be a hardship to put that on?
Mr. Gallagher: I don't see any purpose for it. It is not going to be visible.
Mr. Morrow: Well unless it is totally not visible. I couldn't visualize the building
back there when I went to visit the site and I throw that out. If my
bellow Commissioners agree it is hidden, there is no need for it, but if it
isn't, I would like to pursue that.
Mr. Gallagher: I can talk it over with my client.
Mr. Morrow: I don't want to add any burden if there is no significance to it but you
understand where I am coming from. I can't completely visualize the
building on the site as it relates to what you can see. I will leave it and
see if any other commissioners feel that way.
14661
Mr. Engebretson: Let me follow up on that. The exposure going north on Middlebelt
wrapping that front treatment around the side is certainly going to take
sil.• care of the vision from Six Mile Road, but the question is going up
Middlebelt is it going to be highly visible the length of that building or
are you anticipating that it really is hidden back there?
Mr. Gallagher: I feel this will be very attractive back there. You are not going to see
much of it until you are right on top of it. I developed that site plan
showing Jimmies Rustics and that whole corner and all the buildings
around there plan-wise you can look at it and see where this is and you
can pick out your line of site in any direction.
Mr. Alanskas: John, if this petition is approved, would they come back at a later date
with a sign package?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Are all your parking places 10' x 20'?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Double striped?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
`\r.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to ask the petitioner, you don't intend to have any type of
vehicle storage on the site with the type of repair work you do?
Mr. Eliasen: No, no wrecks or anything like that. Nothing besides what I basically
do at the station.
Mr. Morrow: Nothing overnight?
Mr. Eliasen: Something waiting for parts possibly but no junk cars.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-12-2-33 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-7-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
16, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-12-2-33 by
Gallagher Group requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto repair
center on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Six
14663
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
'r.. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also received
letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal's office stating their
offices have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a
letter from the Inspection Department stating no problems or
deficiencies were found.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go immediately to the petitioner.
Wendy Fry: I am with Harley Ellington Design, an architect, engineering and
planning firm. We are representing Glen Eden Memorial Park. We are
proposing to add to the existing mausoleum. The mausoleum itself is
located in the interior of the site. It is seved by access roads from Eight
Mile Road and continues on that road. The addition itself is going to
facing the interior of the cemetery and from a distance it also faces the
golf course on either side. (She presented the plans) We are adding
approximately 1200 crypts at what is now seen as the back of the
mausoleum. What we are going to do is create a new front door for
the mausoleum and open up new access to the building. The addition
will be served by a road that we are going to relocate. Currently the
road runs right through here. What we are going to do is put in a new
stow road a little bit more to the southwest with a boulevard that extends all
the way down to the existing cemetery road, and we will do the same
thing on this side. The landscape in front of the building will include
perennials, ground coverings, and red maple trees. We intend to match
the materials in the existing mausoleum, which is granite and glass.
Mr. Morrow: The extension going south, will the east wall match the west mall?
Ms. Fry: In terms of material?
Mr. Morrow: Will the addition to the east look similar to that or just like it? It will
be about the same scale?
Ms. Fry: Yes.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-12-2-34 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
14662
Mile Road and Ravine Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 95-12-2-33 be approved subject to the granting of a variance for a
deficient front yard setback by the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the
following additional conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet #1 dated December 18, 1995
prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Co., which is hereby
approved, shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated December 18, 1995
prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Co., which is hereby
approved, shall be adhered to; and
3) That the Landscape Plan dated December 18, 1995 prepared by
Gallagher Group Construction Co., which is hereby approved, shall
be adhered to and shall be installed prior to final inspection and
shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
\..
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
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.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-12-2-34 by
Harley Ellington Design requesting waiver use approval to construct an
addition to the existing Glen Eden Community Mausoleum located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Newburgh and Gill Roads in the
North 1/2 of Section 5.
14664
#1-8-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 16, 1996 on Petition 95-12-2-34 by
Harley Ellington Design requesting waiver use approval to construct an
addition to the existing Glen Eden Community Mausoleum located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Newburgh and Gill Roads in the
North 1/2 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-12-2-34 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP2 dated December 14, 1995
prepared by Harley Ellington Design which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to;
2) That the landscaping depicted on the approved site plan shall be
installed prior to final inspection; and
3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated
December 14, 1995 prepared by Harley Ellington Design which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use conditions and requirements as set forth in
Section 6.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543,
as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. 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 Preliminary Plat
approval for Camborne Stark School Subdivision proposed to be located on
14665
the southwest corner of Stark Road and Pinetree Avenue in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled back in December. Mr. Roskelly, at that time,
was working some details on the site plan with some neighboring
property owners. First, we need a resolution to remove this item from
the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-9-96 RESOLVED that, the approval for the Preliminary Plat for Camborne Stark
School Subdivision proposed to be located on the southwest corner of Stark
Road and Pinetree Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, be taken from
the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: At the time of tabling the major concern was what we
were going to do with storm water. First of all, I am still baffled as to
how a Planning Commission can interrogate me on an engineering
issue, which really has nothing to do with land use per se, such as a
Nowpreliminary plat, but obviously it does, so I will proceed to indicate to
you.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, I really resent that comment Mr. Roskelly. There was
no one that interrogated you. What we had was a concern. You have
R-1 property, and your solution was at the time was well if I can't find
a way to drain water maybe I will put swales in people's backyards.
Well if I had a 60 foot lot, that is small to begin with, and I don't think
I would be real happy finding a swell in my backyard. That was your
solution that evening. I didn't believe a preliminary site plan where we
were going to have swales in people's backyards was appropriate.
That was why we had these concerns. There was no other reason other
than I am genuinely concerned with the people that were going to be
living there as to what they would eventually have with regard to their
backyard requirements. It was nothing personal. Nothing else directed
other than a general concern for the citizens of the City.
Mr. Roskelly: Since our meeting, I indicated at that meeting I was going to get a 10-
foot easement from the person who lives to the south of this property
so I could get to the storm sewer on Laurel. After that meeting, I was
informed by the owner that he had employed Patrick McDonald, and I
went to a meeting, and at that time he indicated that because of the
14666
confusion it would be necessary that I buy the site, which would be the
westerly 1/2 acre of the site that lies to the south, which fronts on
Stark, and also fronts on Laurel Road. So I have with me a survey of
the lot split that has been proposed, and also a letter from Patrick
McDonald indicating that I am purchasing this land and as a result any
storm water that will not be taken into the Laurel Road sewer will be
detained on the 1/2 acre parcel, which is adjoining but not part of the
subdivision. I have at this time the agreement to purchase this portion,
which is about 90 feet back into this area 45 feet beyond the extreme
west line of my sub. I will then detain any water, if any water has to be
detained, in the rear portion of the 1/2 acre parcel that I am purchasing
so no storm water will be housed or retained in the subdivision per se.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-10-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on December 19, 1995 on Preliminary Plat approval
for Camborne Stark School Subdivision proposed to be located on the
southwest corner of Stark Road and Pinetree Avenue in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Camborne Stark School
Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of the open space
requirement as set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations for the
following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat is in compliance with all of the applicable
standards and requirements as set forth in the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That no City department has objected to approval of the
Preliminary Plat;
3) That the design of the Preliminary Plat is consistent with good land
use planning principles; and
4) That the amount of land required to be set aside as open space
would be so small as to be inconsequential.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof
of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to
the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department,
Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
14667
Mr. McCann: Although there is no proposed agreement that has been consummated, I
think this is sufficient for purposes of preliminary plat approval so
*a, therefore I believe the 60 foot is sufficient for retention and would
resolve my concerns therefore I will not oppose it.
Mr. Roskelly: He obviously read Mr. McDonald's letter. I thought we would be
closing by this date. As you see, he said the following week and from
the date of his letter it would be this week. Perhaps it will be this
week. They are waiting for title work, and it may be next week but
certainly I will have the warranty deed.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Roskelly we can take you at your word. I think we have a good
solution to what was a genuine concern as Mr. McCann indicated
earlier. I feel very comfortable that the people in the neighborhood that
had expressed concern about the water issue in the past would find this
to be a very satisfactory solution. I think you did the right thing.
Mr. Roskelly: May I make one more comment. I think to me, if you remember when
we first came in for the rezoning there were quite a few of the people
that live in the area that were in the audience and were somewhat
concerned over it. Since that time I have talked to many of them, and
they seem to be quite pleased with the layout and the design, and as
you can see here tonight none of the neighbors are here so I would like
to assume they are all pleased with the proposed development.
Mr. Engebretson: I hope so and I think you will soon find that the Planning Commission
is as well.
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 716th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held December
19, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-11-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 716th Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on December 19, 1995 are
approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
r..
14668
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Rite Aid Pharmacy requesting approval for signage for the
law commercial building located at 29250 Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 36.
Mr. Miller: This property received Planning Commission approval to construct a
commercial building on the site the middle of last year, and part of the
conditions for site plan approval was to have all signage come back
before the Planning Commission for approval. They are proposing one
wall sign for the front of the building, which would face Joy Road.
They are allowed a wall sign of 92 sq. ft. They are proposing one at 59
sq. ft. so it is a conforming wall sign. They are also proposing a
ground sign to be located on the western drive as you drive on the right
hand side of the site. They are allowed 30 sq. ft. and that is what they
are proposing so these are conforming signs for the site.
Mike Williams: I am with SignArt Inc. The proposal before you is for some signage
that we would like to install while going through the process to get the
rest of the signage. At the suggestion of the Planning Department we
did come up with a revision of the monument sign, which reduces the
width to ten feet with a masonry base and we would like to proceed
with that.
r..- Mr. Engebretson: What about the ground sign that is being proposed for this?
Mr. Williams: What we are suggesting what we do is replace that land base with
masonry and the length of the sign rather than being 11 feet would be
10 feet. The sign portion would be 3 ft. by 10 ft, the lettering, which is
the only part that is really illuminated.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that sign intended to go on what appears to be an island?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Did you say that sign would be 11 ft. by 3 ft.?
Mr. Williams: 3 ft. by 10 ft.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, our notes indicated that we started with 10 ft. sign, 3 ft.
base, total of 30 sq. ft. Is that what he is still suggesting?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. McCann: That is still the maximum amount?
14669
Mr. Nagy: For a free-standing sign yes.
Mr. Williams: There have been some question whether those rounded end
embellishments count as sign or not, and what we are saying rather than
leaving that up in the air, those have been removed.
Mr. McCann: You are still requesting the full extent, which you are only allowed one
ground sign. You indicated to us you are currently before the Zoning
Board of Appeals to get a second ground sign, correct?
Mr. Williams: Right, and we think that is well within the spirit of the ordinance. If
that lot had not been purchased by Rite Aid, another building could
have been built there, which would have been granted a ground sign of
the same size, and we think in this particular case that an additional
ground sign will play a major role in making sure that ingress point is
used safely by people trying to pull in there. It is important to mark
that entrance.
Mr. McCann: So you are thinking you are going to want another 30 sq. ft. sign at the
other entrance?
Mr. Williams: It is our thought that through all the boards that have considered what
would be an adequate ground sign that, over the years the size has
dropped down, at this point in time at least, 30 sq. ft. is being
°'" considered by the City as being a ground sign that is not onerous in
appearance but is one that adequately identifies what is in that place of
business. If it is too small, then obviously it is not functional and it is
not going to serve its purpose of ingress and egress and also a certain
level of advertisement as far as getting people in and out. A lot of time
the normal reaction is less is better. Sometimes less may not be better.
30 sq. ft. is a very, very small sign.
Mr. McCann: I happen to disagree with you. To me you are also requesting three
wall signs for the building as well.
Mr. Williams: If I may, I don't think this is something that normally happens but the
request on the wall sign has dropped drastically.
Mr. McCann: What was the results of the Zoning Board of Appeals tonight?
Mr. Williams: They still haven't voted.
Mr. McCann: Can I make a suggestion if the rest of the Commissioners agree? I
think we have a couple more items. Maybe we should put this off until
the end of the agenda to see what their results are because I have a real
14670
difficult time going with the maximum amount on these entrance
markers.
*Now Mr. Engebretson: Does anyone object to doing that? I certainly don't. (There were no
objections) We will suspend this item until the end of the meeting.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna
application by Guillermo Bravo requesting approval for the installation of a
satellite dish antenna for property located at 34600 St. Martin Avenue in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4.
David Keliher: I am with Time Warner Satellite Services, Sterling Heights. I am here
on behalf of Mr. Bravo. Have you had a chance to go out to the
house?
Mr. Engebretson: We have and I am wondering where Mr. Bravo is.
Mr. Keliher: I called and checked with Mr. Miller to see if Mr. Bravo needed to be
here. Both he and his wife work evenings and they both took off work
last week to be here and I called to see if it would be necessary for
them to be here, and I was told it would not be necessary.
Mr. Engebretson: As long as you have power of attorney to make commitments for them.
Mr. LaPine: After my inspection of the site, my personal opinion is that the dish
isn't that intrusive because there is an air conditioning unit right behind
it but I can see how the neighbor next door, because it is right outside
her kitchen window, feels. I think the solution is for you to plant some
shrubbery all the way down the side to the front of the parcel, which
should pretty much shield it from her seeing it, and by doing that it will
not interfere with your reception and it will also shield it from the
street. I think that would solve the problem for the neighbor and also
from the street if the petitioner has no objection to that, and I want
these shrubs to be good size shrubs so it is covered now not 25 years
from now. With that I would have no objections.
Mr. Engebretson: Let me give you some suggestions. The petitioner has some very nice
arborvitae surrounding his patio. If he had some plant material of that
caliber planted, and I don't think they need to be that high, but of that
quality. They are really wonderful plants. This dish is only about five
feet high at its maximum so if we had plant material five to six feet high
down that property line, the neighbor wouldn't even see the dish. If it
is your belief that the petitioner would be willing to implement that
plan, then I think we can act on that this evening. Are you in a position
to make that commitment?
14671
Mr. Keliher: I just want to make sure. As long as it is not interfering with the signal.
Mr. Engebretson: We checked that to the best of our ability. The direction that dish is
aimed, unless it goes out to the side, I presume it will be all right. We
would expect that you would want to make sure of that but it was our
impression that the plant materials could be far enough away, at least
while it is up to the dish maybe it could be down scaled a bit. You
obviously don't want to put in landscaping that has the opposite effect
that we are looking for here. Similar to what he has around the patio.
We are not trying to dictate what it should be but of that caliber.
Mr. Alanskas: As long as he has it as tall as the ones he has in the back, that will be
fine.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't know that they need to be that tall necessarily. Younger plants
would last longer.
Mr. Alanskas: Just so from the front you can't see it.
Mr. Keliher: At this point if Mr. Bravo approves it?
Mr. Engebretson: Then you have a home run.
`'r► Mr. Piercecchi: When I observed the site I found the air conditioning unit more
objectionable than the antenna. Is it okay to put large units like that so
you can see them from the street? I thought all air conditioning units
had to be at the rear of the property.
Mr. Nagy: There is no requirement regarding air conditioning units.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you think that should be looked into? I think we should look into
that.
Mrs. Blomberg: My husband used to be a furnace man. Sometimes the location of air
conditioners have to do with the construction of the house and the
furnace.
Mr. Engebretson: I have to agree with that. This dish is just not in the class of what we
were intending to control and frankly I found this dish to be less of a
problem than all the basketball backboards in every neighborhood in
Livonia. I still think, based on what Mr. LaPine said, this neighbor
does have some rights there and I think we should tend to that and
once that is done I think the City has done its job and hopefully
everybody enjoys their tranquillity and their TV at the same time.
14672
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
�i.• approved, it was
#1-12-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
the Satellite Dish Antenna application by Guillermo Bravo requesting
approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located
at 34600 St. Martin Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4 subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the request to retain the satellite dish antenna at its existing
location is hereby approved;
2) That the Site and Specification Plan submitted by Time Warner
Satellite Services, received by the Planning Commission on
December 28, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the satellite dish antenna shall be screened from the adjacent
neighbor by landscaping and also screened from the street. This
will be done by June 15, 1996 as the Planning Commission reserves
the right to reconsider this matter in the event the screening has not
been complied with.
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 DiComo Associates requesting approval for signage for the
commercial building located at 37355 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 5.
Mr. Engebretson: We have a sign permit plan by DiComo for Rite Aid and Caddy Shack
at Eight Mile and Newburgh. They are all conforming signs. We told
the petitioner it was not necessary to appear tonight. Given that fact I
will look for a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-13-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Sign Permit Application by DiComo Associates requesting approval for
signage for the commercial building located at 37355 Eight Mile Road in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 5 subject to the following conditions:
14673
1) That the Sign Package by DiComo Associates, received by the
Planning Commission on January 4, 1996, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That all additional signage for this site 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. Engebretson: Now we will return to item 11.
Alan Green, 1577 North Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills: I am the attorney for Rite
Aid. I really appreciate your tabling this and getting back to us. We
were before the Zoning Board of Appeals, which happened to be at the
same time. You have had a very long meeting and I am sure you are
very tired. I am not quite sure what has been presented up until this
point in time but we had come to you with two of the signs that we
wanted to put on this building and indicated that we have a larger sign
package that was going before the Zoning Board of Appeals, which
would then come back before the Planning Commission at a subsequent
point in time, but we are opening the store at the end of this month and
we wanted to make sure we had some signage on the building rather
than having banners floating at this time. That is where we are at. At
r.. the study session this body had some comments about the overall
package. You gave it to us because we were going to come back to
you sometime after we addressed this issue. Some of those comments
were addressed and dealt with by the Zoning Board of Appeals tonight.
If you want me to tell you what they did.
Mr. Engebretson: We are only going to act tonight sir on the two items before us, the one
ground sign and the wall sign, but we are interested in the outcome of
your appeals case.
Mr. Green: Based upon comments of the Planning Commission three issues were
raised. One, there was a concern about the monument sign, particularly
the aluminum on the bottom. There was a question raised why can't
that be brick like the store. Another comment related to the size of the
monument signs. That is because we have two, can't we do them
smaller, and the third comment related to the signage on Middlebelt
Road, particularly do we need all the signage there, the Rite Aid
Pharmacy sign along with the logo and the monument sign? Those
were the concerns I took away from that meeting. We went back and
looked at all three issues and we made some changes to the proposal.
On the Middlebelt side we went to the Zoning Board of Appeals with
14674
essentially two signs. We eliminated the Rite Aid Pharmacy sign and
the bullet from that side of the building, which was approximately 113
'owsq. ft., which was almost one-third of the overall package. We
redesigned the monument signs and we put them in brick, and we also
changed the facing a little bit. The signage is the same size and I will
explain that, but we changed the lettering and we eliminated the logo
and just have Rite Aid Drive Thru Pharmacy all in red letters to make it
so the signage isn't busy any more. ( He passed around what the
Zoning Board of Appeals approved.) On Middlebelt side of the
building there are two signs, a monument sign of 30 sq. ft. and a logo
of 30 sq. ft. for a total of 60 sq. ft. On the other side of the building we
have the monument sign, the logo and our major Rite Aid Pharmacy
sign. Finally, we have 42 sq. ft. of signage on the back of the building
relative to the drive thru. Those are all what we call traffic control
instruction signs. They tell you what the clearance is and the height of
the canopy and say drive up here, pick up here. Those are the signs.
No advertising, nothing about Rite Aid in the back. Unfortunately, the
overall package, when you consider two street frontages and the
signage in the back, made it look like there was a great variance. Once
we eliminated the 113 sq. ft. on the Middlebelt side and reduced some
signage in the back, the square footage was fairly close in line. The
variance was maybe 99 sq. ft. in total for all the signs. The issue that
we addressed principally with respect to the size of the monument
signs, there was some discussion about that but based upon the
`44. setbacks of the building's location there is very little visibility,
particularly on Middlebelt, where the only sign you are really going to
have that says Rite Aid is the monument sign. You really can't see
anything until you drive right past that location. It is a really unique
location for us for a couple of reasons. Number one, we have our first
stand alone store in Livona. It is a new concept to have stand alone
stores, and it has two accesses to two major roads but it is not a corner.
You can't have a corner sign that would identify the store in both
directions. You essentially have two roads but you can't see the signs
when you come down Middlebelt. The only sign you will see is the
monument sign and the logo when you get to the building, but you
can't see any signs coming down Joy Road, and I think that was the
basis, I can't speak for the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I think that
was part of their rationale, along with the setbacks of the building,
which were fairly large. If you were to take this site and put it on a
normal building site without this other lot, the signage in front that we
have is fairly typical and identical to what the Zoning Board of Appeals
had approved in virtually every location. The issue became we had to
reduce signage because we had these signs in back with the drive thru
and we had the Middlebelt location. We don't really have much on
Middlebelt. That was really the result. Also the issue came out on the
14675
Middlebelt frontage, there is really no barrier there separating the drive
from the church property, and it was of some concern as to people
`r. going over on the church property coming out the drive and not
actually using the proper drive. In looking at the site plan we don't
know how that was addressed but it certainly appeared to us that was
an issue, and we ought to deal with that, and we agreed with the
Zoning Board of Appeals a condition of approval on us was putting
some sort of barrier and working it out with the pastor and coming up
with something on that site. That was essentially what happened
tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: So what was their ruling? the modified proposal received a favorable
vote?
Mr. Green: Right, the modified proposal received a favorable vote from the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson: So you will likely be coming back to seek approval on that package but
as we all know, all we are dealing with tonight are the two signs.
Mr. Green: I would ask that we modify our proposal for the signs. The size
doesn't change but the monument sign with the brick base as we
proposed it to the ZBA after our discussions, we are seeking approval.
'''o' Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Williams covered that at an earlier time.
Mr. Green: If you have any questions.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you represent Rite Aid? Are you an employee of Rite Aid?
Mr. Green: I am an attorney that represents Rite Aid.
Mr. Engebretson: Have you been involved with them on a regular basis?
Mr. Green: I have been involved with Rite Aid maybe the last four months and I
have been going to more and more of these meetings.
Mr. Engebretson: Maybe I should inquire from Mr. Williams or one of your colleagues. I
am very baffled by the Rite Aid approach to signage. Typically the
large corporations that we deal with have standards and they are very
consistent from one location to another and we see some consistency
with Rite Aid but then we see the really glaring exceptions. The one
that really jumps out at me is the one at Farmington and Nine Mile
Road where most of the Rite Aid signs I see are red, and in a shopping
center where virtually all the stores in the shopping center have red
14676
signs, Rite Aid has white signs. I am just really curious about that. It
has nothing to do with what we are doing here tonight, but I am never
.. going to have the opportunity to ask that.
Jim Fowler, 5400 Perry Drive: I am with Rite Aid Corporation. That has an orange
background and the orange and red just doesn't work. I can direct you
to two or three other stores where we have a darker background where
we go with white lettering. The sign is identical. We just changed the
plastic into white so we have a contrast. This is the only reason for the
change.
Mr. Engebretson: Well it makes sense.
Mr. McCann: I am still concerned. I understand your request why you want two
large monument signs. I am not comfortable with that yet. My feeling
is if you have one large monument sign off Joy Road, that is your main
entrance. If you didn't have access to Middlebelt Road, that is all you
would have, and you would still be there and still have your sign. In
this case you are getting lucky because you have a second entrance on
Middlebelt Road but you are trying to make it to us like it is a hardship.
I don't think it is a hardship. It is an added benefit to your store that
you have two entrances. You have a store on our agenda that we just
voted for, total signage for the whole store is 107 sq. ft. You are
asking for close to three times that. You have reduced it to just over
double that. They actually went under the sign ordinance for what they
requested. They didn't even request the maximum. That is going to be
a great store. I am sure it is going to do very well at Eight Mile and
Newburgh. Here you want to exceed on each location, and I
understand some of your concerns. My concern is if we allow this one
tonight, the max of 30 sq. ft. on the monument sign, are you going to
be happier if you get 15 sq. ft. for an entrance marker and say this is an
entrance marker off Joy Road or would you rather go to something like
20'x20', and not have us deal with this. This is only one person's
opinion but when you come back I am not going to be inclined to have
another giant monument sign over there. We are trying to limit the
signs in Livonia. At your other locations they have limited the signs
and I think Eight Mile and Newburgh is a prime example.
Mr. Green: The monument sign today on Joy Road, we would like that sign in that
size. I understand, I remember you raised the issue about the size of
the signs, and we will be prepared to address that. I hope I can
persuade you that our position makes since. We will be prepared to
address that. I understand your concerns. We looked at it with the
company. My intent typically in dealing with these issues and
14677
companies is do what we can and try to work it out. We want to be
here so we will look at it. We will get into this explanation next time.
Mr. McCann: You understand if you are approved, everyone feels signs are
important.
Mr. Green: I understand
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-14-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Sign Permit Application by Rite Aid Pharmacy requesting approval for
signage for the commercial building located at 29250 Joy Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Rite Aid Pharmacy, as received by the
Planning Commission on December 14, 1995, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That all additional signage for this site shall come back before the
Planning Commission for their review and approval.
3) That the monument sign shall have a brick foundation instead of
'tow aluminum.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 717th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on January 16, 1996 was adjourned at 11:38 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/41i-4/ /////
`� e
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
r
4. 1 /
n' 1
ATTEST: iki.iL-111 ' n` .f�
�/�1I'IJV•.
Jack Engebre son, Chairr�i an
Jg
'glow