HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995 01-31 13845
MINUTES OF THE 697th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
`r..
On Tuesday, January 31, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 697th 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 35 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow
William LaPine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg
C. Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: None
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
1"" tonight.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
94-11-1-24 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone
property located south of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark
Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1A.
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 Al Winkel of Woodland Lanes
stating he has no objection to the rezoning but he does question
the location of the homes on these lots and the awareness of the
potential home buyers regarding the location of the bowling
center. There is a certain amount of noise at the change of
leagues at 9:30 p.m. and 11:45 p.m. Lighting is also a factor.
I have great concern about unreasonable residents complaining
about normal business noises coming from the center.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you please take a moment and explain to the
audience how it comes about that the Planning Commission
initiated this petition?
13846
Mr. Nagy: As a result of other adjustments of zoning in the area, more
particularly the lands that abut the property to the east, which
follows sometime ago the rezoning of land to the south which is
where the new Orangelawn Subdivision is being constructed, in
evaluating those zoning changes and looking at the surrounding
area, the Commission became aware of the residual piece of RUF
zoning at the south end of the bowling center. In an effort to
try to correct and coordinate development in the area to a
uniform residential zoning classification, the Planning
Commission scheduled this matter for a public hearing to hear
comments both from the affected property owner, as well as other
interested property owners, as to whether or not this property
should be rezoned to the R-1A zoning classification so as to make
one uniform zoning district in the area to try to effect a more
comprehensive development of the likely subdivision to follow for
that area.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. Any questions or comments?
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, the property under the RUF adjacent to the parking
area, how is that zoned? Is that R-1?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-11-1-24 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously
approved, it was
r..
#1-9-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-11-1-24 by
the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located
south of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1A, the City Planning
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 94-11-1-24 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 districts in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical extension
of existing zoning in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will prevent any further
encroachment of non-residential uses into the area.
4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan which designates the subject area for medium density
residential land use.
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.
13847
Mr. LaPine: John, this P designation behind the bowling alley, is that used
by the bowling alley?
`A... Mr. Nagy: Yes it is.
Mr. rapine: It worries me that we have residential with parking on three
sides. Too bad that parcel is zoned parking because that way we
could have an established line along there, but there is nothing
we can do about it now.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-1-26
by Las Brisas Development Company and Perpich-Murninghan Venture
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile
Road between Garden Avenue and Harrison Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 13 from RUF 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
there are no public storm sewers readily available to service the
proposed rezoning. We have also received a letter from David A.
Gumenick representing Bayberry Park, Inc. stating they have no
objections to this rezoning.
Mr. Engehretson: Would the petitioner please step forward.
Richard Sommerville, Tas Brisas Development Company. My brother is Steve
Summerville. We are located at 24824 Marguerite, Flat Rock,
48134. A couple of things. Our background, we have been in
business for 15 years. We are builders and developers. My
brother and myself have both had four years of education in
architectural design, commercial design, landscape design. We
have developed a 14-unit apartment community. We have developed
a 26-unit condominium community. We have built mostly custom
homes, coordinated and assisted in many remodeling projects. We
are also code plus certified builders. That is a program put out
by the American Plywood Association. It just states that we are
doing things above what the code calls for. A few things about
the proposed project. What is there basically now, there are two
30-year old existing homes with block outbuildings in the back.
There are no basements. There are crawl spaces with parts on a
slab. They are in pretty poor shape. We are proposing to
demolish those two homes and construct some upper-end apartments,
approximately 12 units. These apartments are going to be from
1150 to 1200 square foot apartments with extra storage space.
The exteriors are going to be traditional, all brick with dryvet
material. We are using a very good architect out of Royal Oak
who is good on detail. These units will have nine foot ceilings
13848
on first floor units for volume. They also have plenty of
windows for light. We also think the market calls for washers
and dryers. These will be large kitchens with oak cabinets. We
`. also
also going to propose covered parking for each unit. We are
also not going to use tin structure. We are going to put an
actual shingle roof type carport to match the shingles on the
buildings with hip roofs on the ends. We have never seemed to
find a good structure from these metal ones they use and they
look like lean-tos. My brother has been to school for landscape
architecture. We believe in lush landscaping, sprinkler fittings
for the whole project and we do landscape for privacy from the
surrounding areas. We have met with John Nagy twice on this. I
wanted to get the City's feel for the project that we are
proposing. He felt there were apartments almost around the whole
perimeter of the project, and he thought it might be a nice plus
for the City and a plus for us to develop it because the
surrounding area is apartments and this would be apartments also.
I think it would be a definite plus compared to what is there
now. Also, in reviewing the surrounding area before we entered
into this, we saw that most of it was R-7 so it would not be a
spot zoning type of situation.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is the side of your structure going to be perpendicular or
parallel to Five Mile Road?
Mr. Sommerville: It will be perpendicular to Five Mile Road.
Mr. Alanskas: We are just talking about rezoning, not the site plan tonight?
`.. That will come later if this is approved?
Mr. Engebretson: Right.
Mr. LaPine: Have you considered R-C rather than R-7, which is condos rather
than apartments?
Mr. Sommerville: No we haven't. We wanted to get into apartments. Our last
project was condominiums and we thought this piece of property is
not a real large piece of property so we didn't think we could
get condos and garages and everything that would be required in
there.
Mr. TaPine: You may have to cut down on the design. I just feel we have
enough apartments in that area and I think maybe the condos might
be something that would fit in there. The zoning is the same
except it is the "C" designation. That is just one Commissioners
feelings.
Mrs. Blomberg: Will you be the owners?
Mr. Sommerville: Yes, we will own them. We are firm believers in using good
exterior materials, brick and dryvet. Dryvet is the basis of the
system that they used at Laurel Park Center. It is a very nice
material, maintenance free. We, of course, being owners and
managers, we don't want to be painting them every three to four
years so we use the better texture materials. It keeps it
looking nicer for the City and then we don't have to be out there
13849
painting it every three to five years. I have some pictures of
the last project we did. (He presented pictures to the
Commission) Again, these are going to be really set aside from
any apartments you would call normal apartments. We are going to
put fireplaces in these, nine foot ceilings, etc. They are going
to be more of an upper-end type of apartment and we hope to
attract a real nice clientele.
Mrs. Blomberg: Sine you will be the owners are you going to have on-site
management?
Mr. Sommerville: Yes.
Mrs. Blomberg: I too kind of go along with Mr. IaPine's thinking. Maybe a nice
amount of condos might be better for that area, but obviously you
have thought that through.
Mr. Sommerville: When we originally met with Mr. Nagy we proposed a plan and he
suggested some changes and we changed it. We were just trying to
do what was around the area. In my different contacts with
different cities, I found you like to keep whatever else is
around the surrounding areas. We thought with apartments to the
east and apartments to the west, I think there are even some to
the north, that it would better fit in with what is surrounding
the whole property.
Mrs. Blomberg: But you would consider going to condos if that was necessary?
Mr. Sommerville: I don't think we would. I just got through a condominium project
and we try to balance our portfolio with sales and rentals and we
really wanted to do an apartment project this time.
Mr. Marrow: Just to verify what I think I heard. All the R-7 we see
surrounding there is not condos, it is strictly apartments?
Mr. Nagy: In the immediate area further to the north there are condominiums
in Bayberry Park but on the contiguous property are apartments.
Mr. LaPine: Assuming you have apartments here, what would the rental be for
this type of unit?
Mr. Sommerville: We are proposing around $795 to $800 per month.
Mr. LaPine: Do you know the rental of the apartments adjacent to this parcel?
Mr. Sommerville: About $600 for two bedrooms. Again, our square footage is going
to be much larger. We did a market survey of about a ten mile
radius and rents were going from $600 to $700, but their square
footage was quite a bit less. You don't really see a lot of
apartments with this amount of square footage. We feel, we were
in the rental business for a while, our theory is build nice
places and you get nice people and they stay for a long time.
The biggest problem with renting is people are in and out all the
13850
time where you have to go in and fix things up and repair them.
I would consider, if anybody thought the area was very saturated
in Livonia, I would like to hear that comment, but we figure this
\.. is a niche and there are a lot of really nice businesses in this
area where people might be looking for a nice place.
Mr. LaPine: Are these all going to be two bedroom units?
Mr. Sommerville: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Two baths?
Mr. Sommerville: Yes two baths.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-1-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#1-10-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-1-26 by
Las Brisas Development Company and Perpich Murninghan Venture
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile
Road between Garden Avenue and Harrison Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 13 from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-1-26 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 districts in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an
existing zoning district in the area.
3) That the proposed change will permit the subject property to be
used for multiple family residential consistent with the use of the
surrounding properties.
4) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land
Use Plan designation of medium density residential for the subject
property.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
13851
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-1-27
by Phillip Barth requesting to rezone property located south of
Schoolcraft and west of Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 28 from M-1 to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: If the petitioner is present, would you please come forward and
give us your reasons for making this request.
Philip Barth, 18845 Beech Daly, Redford, 48240: I built this building about nine
years ago and originally intended that it should be for small
offices. Evidently the office need is very small at the present
time. I have had a vacancy in this building since the first of
July 1994, and it is a probability that I will have an additional
2400 feet available very shortly. I am trying to increase the
use of this property so it will pay taxes and pay me a little
bit.
Mr. Engebretson: It is your belief then that if this zoning change were to occur,
it would make it easier for you to rent your space?
**ft. Mr. Barth: That is right.
Mr. Engebretson: You indicated when you constructed the building approximately
nine years ago, that it was your intent to rent it out for
office. You are certainly aware that it was zoned for light
manufacturing?
Mr. Barth: Yes I understand that very well. I also understood I could build
office space on this property.
Mr. Eligebretson: Mr. Nagy, the staff notes indicate the existing uses in that
building, which I believe is a print shop in one instance, are
permitted uses in the M-1 zoning district. In general, are
offices permitted in any category in this M-1 zoning district?
Mr. Nagy: Yes offices are permitted in the ML, M-1 and M-2 as well as the
proposed C-2.
Mr. Engebretson: So the petitioners original intent, it was valid at that time and
it is still valid at this time with the existing zoning. The
difference would be that with the general business zoning we
would then bring into the arena many different commercial types
of retail applications that might be suitable there.
'fir.
13852
Mr. Nagy: Correct. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Morrow: Have you done a parking analysis on your site?
rr. Mr. Barth: Yes I have. I think there are about 20 spaces altogether. My
plans show the spat s. I don't have the plans with me but I did
submit the parking lot plan to the Clerk when I submitted the
application.
Mr. Morrow: Does the staff have that plan? I wonder if we might see that.
(Mr. Miller presented the plan)
Mr. Morrow: Would that be two-way traffic going around the building or would
it be one-way traffic?
Mr. Miller: One-way traffic.
Mr. Morrow: That particular parking arrangement really isn't conducive to
commercial. I wanted to see haw he was going to get an
additional seven spots on that site.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you have a potential tenant?
Mr. Barth: I have talked to several people. One of them is a butcher shop.
Another one is an Ameritech company that sells all kinds of
telephones and things of this nature, and another is a company
that sells baked goods. In reference to the parking in back of
'tow as
building, it would be mostly for the people that work there
as well as anybody that might want to park there. You understand
that if you have employees, you can designate where they would
park. That is what the parking would be for in the back of the
building.
Mr. Morrow: Is the reason you are asking for C-2 is because of the print shop
that is already in use? Would that be the reason you are asking
for the C-2?
Mr. Barth: Not particularly. I am thinking in terms of next year and the
year after and maybe the print shop would be gone.
Mr. Morrow: My question is that is only a permitted use in C-2. Is that
correct John or is it a waiver use in C-2?
Mr. Nagy: A print shop is permitted in C-2.
Mr. Morrow: That would be the reason for the C-2 request as opposed to C-l.
Mr. Barth: That is correct.
Mr. k gebretson: Mr. Barth, do you have any other comments you want to make?
13853
Mr. Barth: That is all I have in mind. I hope you act favorably on this
because I could use some good tenants in there.
`�. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against this proposal.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-1-27 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#1-11-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
January 31, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition
94-12-1-27 by Philip Barth requesting to rezone property located south
of Schoolcraft and west of Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 28 from M-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-1-27 be denied for
the following reasons:
1) That the subject area is located within the City's primary
industrial area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the further
encroachment of commercial uses into an industrial area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan designation of industrial land use for the subject
property.
N"` 4) That the existing us-As in the building are permitted within the
existing M-1 zoning district.
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: When I was there I felt if we changed this that we would have
more traffic, and that is quite a high traffic area on Schoolcraft.
Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to add the comment that I am going to support
the denying resolution, and I would like to simply say that the
building is extremely attractive. I think there are many ways of
leasing space, other than changing the zoning, and since the
petitioner has a vacancy, I understand that occurs from time to
time, but I also understand that there are ways of marketing
vacant office space. The City has a very small vacancy in office
space throughout the City right now. I wculd think that this
problem can be solved through proper marketing and lessor/lessee
relations. It is an extremely nice looking building, and I would
urge the petitioner good luck in renting it out in its current
form.
13854
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, T. Pine, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi: When I visited the site I noticed in back of the proposed
property a lot of junk vehicles. I was wondering if our City
Planner would look into that and see if that is acceptable
storage back there. I know that came up before the Council at
their last meeting, and I think they are very concerned with
keeping our City tidy and very presentable. They work hard at
that. I think the name of the company is Miracle Auto.
Mr. Nagy: Your concern has already been lodged and duly recorded with the
Inspection Department.
Mr. Engebretson: Hasn't a violation been issued John?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Do they have a court date?
Mr. Nagy: They gave them a Notice to Show Cause.
Mr. Engebretson: So no further action is needed.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-1-2
by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located north of Ann Arbor
Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 33 from RUF to R-1.
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
should the area develop as residential lots, it will be necessary
to provide appropriate widening of Ann Arbor Trail to
accommodate the turning movements to the subdivision area.
Further, since storm water run-off from the area will be required
to be outletted through the Hines Park area to the Middle Rouge
River, it may be necessary to construct an intermediary
sedimentation pond. They finish by saying their department has
no objections to the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Soave would you come forward please.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What I propose is a 21 home subdivision. The sewer and
water is on site. We are talking to Wayne County Parks about
13855
surface drainage into their Nankin pond. These homes will go
from $175,000 to $200,000 and will be two-story homes with full
basements. They will be brick. I will answer your questions.
`to. Mr. Morrow: This is not a question, it is more of a comment. It surely is a
beautiful section of the City that you are looking to develop.
It could open up that whole area. It could be something
worthwhile for Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Soave, you said you were talking to Wayne County in regards
to the drainage, what have they said?
Mr. Soave: There is no problem.
Mr. Alanskas: They will give you that in writing, of course?
Mr. Soave: They will not do anything until they see the plans. They also
indicated as far as the sediment pond, they might even waive the
sediment pond.
Mr. Engebretson: Anything more Mr. Soave?
Mr. Soave: I hope you approve it.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against this proposal.
Janice Coyle, 34001 Ann Arbor Tr. : That is the first house that the subdivision
would be across from. What you said is true. This is a
beautiful area. That is why we purchased there. There is a lot
of mature greenery, trees and bushes. It is a beautiful area.
He didn't specify where his entrances would be on his plans.
There is nothing that shows haw you would get in and out of the
subdivision.
Mr. Engebretson: We do have a pre-preliminary plat because that is a separate
process that comes further down the road if this zoning change is
successful, but I can tell you that Scott will put a board up to
show you where it is. This is not necessarily a commitment but
this is the understanding that we would have.
Ms. Coyle: What I received through the mail, is what I am saying, does not
have anything on it.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand, and we are trying to be responsive to show you
where it is. The issue here tonight is one of zoning. We
understand your concern about where that entrance will be. Mr.
Miller if you could point out to the lady where that would occur.
(Mr. Miller presented the plan)
Ms. Coyle: That answers the entrance but I still protest it. I would like
to see it stay the way it is.
13856
Bruce Breisch, 36550 Ann Arbor Tr. : I also oppose the proposal for this. We awn
the property which is zoned rural urban farm, and in the last 15
years that we have been living there we have been noticing a
slight whittling away of this type of property, and I think we do
slow have a great asset in a rural urban farm community in Livonia. I
really would like to see the City try to maintain that type of
zoning.
Mr. Engebretson Which would be your property?
Mr. Breisch: I am further up between Wayne and Newburgh.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand. I was wondering if you were immediately adjacent
to this.
James McGarrie, 34081 Ann Arbor Tr. : Basically I agree with what these two people
just stated. I would like to see that stay wooded due to the
fact that it is next to Hines Park. If you did build a sub in
there, do you realize you would be building next to a restaurant?
My question about this retention pond. What is going to happen
when it floods at Hines? There is a lot of stagnant water there
in the summer. Is that going to back up to where my house is?
Mr. Engebretson: Where is your house sir?
Mr. McGarrie: At the corner of Dover and Ann Arbor Trail. That was one of my
concerns as far as when that river backs up, is that going to
have stagnant water into our area?
New Ms. Coyle: I would like to add the fact of the extra traffic it will add to
Ann Arbor Trail. It is overtaxed as it is.
Mr. Engebretson: If there is no one else in the audience wishing to speak to this
issue, we will give Mr. Soave another minute.
Mr. Soave: I would like to add that on this property in question we have a
two bedroom frame home and the porch is all dry rotted. I would
say if anything this would fix up the area by taking the house
out.
Mrs. Blomberg: Is there any way he could maintain some of the trees?
Mr. Engebretson: As you will recall Mrs. Blomberg that zoning issues like this are
either up or down and there are no conditions that can go along
with that, but if this were to be approved we could certainly
exercise a lot of control at the platting process. I am sure Mr.
Nagy would agree with that.
Mr. Nagy: Under the plat ordinance all trees that are actually outside the
actual building areas for the homes, driveways, and utilities,
four inches or larger must be retained. It does give us some
control in that regard.
13857
Mr. Engeretson: Mr. Soave is well aware of that.
Mr. Soave: I wouldn't go in there and maw everything down. I try to save
whatever I can.
Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to add Mr. Soave that while I know your
intentions are good, the City has an interest in this and the
City is going to start dropping the hamper big time on people
that cut trccs down that shouldn't come down. I think you are
keenly aware of that. You have been a responsible developer in
other areas of the City but we don't want to leave the impression
we are depending on your good will.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-1-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-12-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 95-1-1-2 by
Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located north of Ann Arbor
Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 33 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
approve Petition 95-1-1-2 for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning in the area.
,ftw. 2) That the proposed zoning district will provide for development of
the subject property consistent with other developed properties in
the area.
3) That the adjacent Middle Rouge Parkway will provide for additional
open space for the lots permitted by the R-1 zoning district.
4) That the R-1 zoning district will provide for more lot sizes which
will encourage the development of a modest amount of more
affordable housing in the community.
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. Engehretson: I want to say to these residents that took the time to come down
here tonight to object to this zoning change, that we understand
your concerns and that these concerns are present in almost every
single change like this that occurs in the City. There is always
a reluctance to have a change, particularly when it involves
removing forested areas that are pleasant to look at.
Unfortunately, the only way to prevent that from happening is to
obtain this property somehow and to then leave it the way it is.
That is rarely a practical solution. I would hope that if this
13858
petition is approved and if this developer, who is well ]mown in
the City of Livonia, should develop this property, that it would
be indeed compatible with your area and would be an uplifting of
that section of the City that you live in, and that it would not
be as difficult a transition as you anticipate now. I want you
to know we really do understand your concern. I had a similar
situation occur two blocks dawn the street from me where hundreds
of houses were built, and we got along fine once that all was
completed. I hope that if this is successful, that you have the
same results there.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Soave, the property behind the Nankin Hill Restaurant, do you
have any idea what they are going to do with that property?
Mr. Soave: I approached the property owner. He has no intention of doing
anything right now.
Mr. Morrow: The reason I asked is because this plat, which is certainly not
in the recording stage, it doesn't allow for any type of ingress
or egress into the existing subdivision. I just wanted to bring
that up. He would have to seek access, if he ever decided to
sell, from another direction.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-2-35
by Jack M. Freij requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD
license for an existing store located within the Merri-Five Shopping
Center on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and
Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have
also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating
this proposal will require the City Council to waive the 1000 ft.
separation requirements set forth by Section 11.03(R)(1) .
Showerman's's at 31450 Five Mile is located within 1000 feet of the
proposed site. Additionally, the Church of Christ at 15431
Merriman is located approximately 300 feet from the proposed
site. Section 11.03(R)(2) requires a minimum of 400 feet of
separation from all church buildings.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward and give us your reasons
for this request.
Jack Freij: I am representing Merriman Drugs at 31320 Five Mile Road. At the
time this petition was filed, which was immediately after the
approval of the extension of the Showerman building and
`o.
13859
converting it into a shopping center, at that time I felt I would
need an SDD license to continue surviving as a drugstore in the
area to meet the competition that was coming right across the
street within the proposed shopping center in place of
Showermans. At that time, also, I would like to add, as
mentioned on several occasions by the developer, that the license
would not be transferred. Therefore, at that time it appeared to
me it would be a good move on my part to protect my business to
continue to offer a service to the community and to protect my
employccc, to apply for an SDD license. I would like to take the
time right now, even though I might have been premature since
nothing has happened across the street. I really don't know what
the status is. If you feel that you cannot act on my petition
tonight because of the 1000 foot distance requirement, being that
license is still there, I wonder if you would consider tabling it
until such time that they decide what to do across the street.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, we have had the same concerns that you have just expressed
relative to the resolution of the facility across the street. We
have asked Mr. Nagy to look into that to see what the current
status is, and we will give Mr. Nagy an opportunity to cont
whether he has any information or not.
Mr. Nagy: It is my understanding that the Goldman Properties have in fact
secured their deal and have acquired the property. However, they
are still negotiating with Perry Drugs. Showermans is going to
continue to operate in the interim until they do decide to take
some other course of action in the future. Right now Showermans
is operating and there is a new owner of the property. Goldman
Nifty Properties have acquired the property.
Mr. McCann: John, what has happened with the SDD and SDM licenses? Have they
been transferred by the City Council as well? So they are
subletting to Showermans at this point?
Mr. Nagy: That is in process right now.
Mr. McCann: They own the property but they have leased it back to previous
owners until such time as they are ready to build. Is that a
correct statement?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: A point of interest Mr. Nagy, as the petitioner mentioned, it is
my recollection also, that the intent across the street at the
new Showermans shopping center was there would not be any SDD or
SDM licenses planned for use across the street. Do you recall it
the same way?
Mr. Nagy: I do recall statements to that effect at the time of the
hearings.
13860
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, have they given you a closing date of Showermans at
this point?
Mr. Nagy: No they have not.
Mr. LaPine: It seemed to me, if I recall correctly, when we had the owner of
that property in here, if Perry Drug Store does go in at that
location, I understood that they would try to transfer the
license from Showermans to the Perry Drug Store. The problem
there was it was moving it back where Perry is supposedly going
to be built so it would be that much closer to the church, but it
is my understanding that is what is going to happen. I have no
objection to this gentleman getting a liquor license as long as
we do not have a liquor license across the street. I just do not
see the two licenses together. The problem we have, even if
Showermans goes out of business and Perry does not go in there,
according to our notes there are no SDD licenses available in the
City. Therefore, you would have to purchase a SDD license from
some other establishment.
Mr. Friej: I understand.
Mr. LaPine: I don't know if Showermans would sell it to you but I guess you
understand. I think at this point, as petitioner has indicated,
we would probably be better off tabling it at this stage until we
find out what the final outcome is going to be on that property.
Mr. Engehretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or
against this proposed SDD license?
Ni..
Joseph Rokicsak: I am part of the development team for Showermans. I am really
not opposed to Jack's proposal but I might be able to answer some
of the questions about what is happening at Showermans. The
closing date is March 15th. As to what is going to happen with
the liquor license on the property, it is not going to Perrys.
We do have a lease signed with Perrys. Perrys is going in
without a liquor license or a beer and wine license, and it is in
the lease that they will not be applying for one. What we will
do with the license and about $400,000 worth of inventory that is
in Showermans right now at this point is not real clear. That is
where we stand right now.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you very much for coming in and sharing that information
with us.
Mr. McCann: Do you have a proposed date at which time you are thinking you
are going to start construction.
Mr. Rokicsak: We will start construction immediately after the 15th. As to
when Showermans closes, it will be when we dispose of the license
and the liquor. The way it is configured now with everybody's
13861
input, there is actually a new space and then Perrys and then we
will work our way back.
`�.. Mr. Rngghretson: So the closing date of March 15th launches the construction but
conceivably Showermans could operate throughout the rest of the
year.
Mr. Rokicsak: I don't think it will but it could.
Mr. McCann: Is there any agreement between you and Perrys that Showermans
will be closed by the time they are ready to open? Would you be
able to open Perrys while Showermans is in operation?
Mr. Rokicsak: That is a tough question.
Mr. McCann: John, he won't have occupancy because his site plan would not be
complete? He would not be able to open the Perrys before his
site plan is complete?
Mr. Nagy: I think that is correct. I am not sure whether the Building
Department would issue a temporary C of 0 but it would certainly
not be in full compliance.
Mr. Rokicsak: Our intent is to have the whole center finished.
Mr. rapine: From what I heard from the developer, there is not going to be a
liquor license at that location. I don't see any reason why we
don't go ahead and approve this gentleman. That gives him some
time to start looking for a license.
Mr. Rokicsak: I didn't say there would not be liquor license at that site. I
said Perrys would not be having a liquor license for beer and
wine.
Mr. LaPine: I thought you told us when you came in for your site plan
approval that Showermans was going to go out of business. If
Shins goes out of business and there is no liquor license
there, and you said Perry's is not going to have a liquor
license, are you going to have someone else move in there and
take it over?
Mr. Rokicsak: At this point I don't know. I have to do something to dispose of
the license and the inventory, and at this point I do not know
what that is going to be.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, a point of clarification. If another tenant somewhere
else in that building were to seek to use that inventory and/or
SDD license, it would be my understanding that they would have to
go through the same process that Merriman Drugs is going through
now. Would that be correct or incorrect?
Mr. Nagy: If it stays within the four walls of the currently established
13862
use, no. If they go outside the four walls that Showermans
currently operates in, then yes. The actual license, however,
would have to be transferred. That is action only the Council
can take. From a purely zoning standpoint, the use is lawfully
N""' established within the confines of the Showerman's building.
Mr. McCann: John, if they are going to rip down the Showermans building, as
they are intending to do.
Mr. Rokicsak: We are not going to be ripping the building down.
Mr. McCann: What are you going to be doing?
Mr. Rokicsak: We are gong to put a new face on the building.
Mr. McCann: So it will match the current building? According to the site
plans we looked at there was going to be a complete new front end
of the building. So basically you will keep three walls, knock
down the fourth, and totally destroy everything inside and start
over from there. John, he is going to be demolishing over 80% of
the building, therefore it is my understanding of the code that
the use would not automatically run in that case.
Mr. Nagy: When Ordinance 543 was amended, we created a waiver use approval
for the licensed facilities for SDD and SICK, the language
specifically placed in the ordinance exempted licensed
establishments already in place. So the zoning ordinance
grandfathers in uniquely the SDD and SDM licenses that were
`toralready in place at the time they became waiver uses.
Mr. Rokicsak: We will not have a 10,000 square foot liquor store there. It
will not exist. That I will guarantee you.
Mrs. Blomberg: I really understood that this liquor license was actually taken
away when we okayed this building. I guess there must be an
error in my thinking.
Mr. Engebretson: I recall it that way too. I would be interested in having the
minutPs reviewed to see what kind of commitment was made.
Mr. Alanskas: That really diRturbs me. I know when Mr. Goldman came before us
he guaranteed emphatically, he said there will not be a liquor
store on that site ever. It is strong language but that is what
was said. Now you are saying something entirely different. That
is disturbing. We will have to look into the matter.
Mr. Engebretson: There is no intent to be argumentative with you but we have a
motto here that a deal is a deal.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-2-35 closed.
13863
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#1-13-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-2-35 by
Jack M. Freij requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license
for an existing store located within the Merri-Five Shopping Center on
the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge
Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
94-12-2-35 be approved subject to the waiving of the requirement of a
1000 foot separation between SDD licensed facilities by the City
Council as well as the waiving of the standard requirement for a 400
foot separation of a SDD licensed facility from a church by the Zoning
Board of Appeals for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use complies with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the subject 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.
'\r. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-2-35 by
Jack M. Freij requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license
for an existing store located within the Merri-Five Shopping Center on
the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge
Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-12-2-35 to date
uncertain.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, McCann, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed.
A roll call on the original approving motion resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Engebretson
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: None
13864
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Noy Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-2-36
by Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver use approval to expand and
increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Milburn and Flamingo Avenues in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35.
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
enclosing a sketch of the proposed relocation of Milburn Avenue
adjacent to the petition area, which the City Council has under
consideration. We have also received letters from the Traffic
Bureau and the Fire Marshal's office stating their departments
have no objections to this proposal.
We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department
stating the existing building is currently nonconforming due to
the 48.9 ft. front yard setback where a minimum of 60 feet of
setback would be required. The proposed addition will be to the
rear of the existing building, deleting seven parking spaces;
however, the parking lot will be expanded to the south creating
additional parking spaces. This additional parking will meet the
requirements of the Ordinance for the number of required parking
spaces per Section 18.38. This proposed addition to a
Nownonconforming building will require a variance granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals for relief from the requirements of
Section 18.21(a). A lot division and combination would need to
be submitted to the Assessor's Department and approved to
facilitate the development of the land into a parking area. This
department would have no objection to the above subject
petition.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward and give us your reasons
for this request.
John VanBrouck: I am the owner of VanBrouck & Associates, Inc. With me
is the owner, George Palushaj.
George Palushaj, 19123 Gary Lane, Livonia. We want to put on an addition of
approximately 3,000 square feet to the back of the building. We
want to enhance the building because we do quite a bit of
business right now. That is about all.
Mr. Piercecchi: If I remember that site correctly, you do have an island of
landscape. What are you showing, just parking in front of the
building? What about the current landscaping that is in there?
13865
Mr. VanBrouck: The site plan that was submitted shows we will keep the existing
island. In fact, we will expand it slightly to the west
increasing the landscape area. So that will remain.
Mr. Engebretson: What evidence do you have that you intend to do that?
Mr. VanBrouck: The site plan that we presented.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you submit a revised site plan?
Mr. VanBrouck: Yes we did. We submitted a revised plan and also we have here a
revised plan showing the increased landscape area.
Mr. Engehretson: Has that been submitted to the Planning Department?
Mr. VanBrouck: No, they advised me just to bring several copies tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: It is going to be hard to deal with that this evening, but we
will see haw it goes. When do you intend to distribute that
material?
Mr. VanBrouck: It is a very minor change to the site plan that you already have.
(He distributed the revised plan)
Mr. Engebretson: What have you done?
Mr. VanBrouck: The entrance to the driveway to the west has been narrowed, which
allowed us to increase the landscape island in front.
Mr. Engebretson: Can you give us some dimensions? From what to what?
Mr. VanBrouck: It is now 26 feet. Before that it was approximately 36 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: If I observe this properly, I see no parking in the front.
Mr. VanBrouck: That is correct. We eliminated that and in essence created a new
landscape area in the front.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think that is a step in the right direction. It will be for
your good. The more attractive it is, the more people it brings
in.
Mr. Alanskas: John, on the south tip of the existing parking lot now going to
the wall to the south, what is that drop off? Do you have any
idea? The question is if they have to fill that in to be level
with the existing parking lot now, and if your existing wall now
is say seven feet and you have a three foot drop, then you would
only have a four foot wall back there.
Mr. Nagy: They will have to comply with the wall requirement either through
regrading the parking lot or adding to the wall. They will have
to satisfy the wall requirement for screening.
13866
Mr. TaPine: How many seats do you have in your restaurant at the present
time?
Mr. Palushaj: 180 seats.
Mr. LaPine: What are you increasing it to?
Mr. Palushaj: About 32 more.
Mr. LaPine: You show on the plan the dining area having 162 seats and then
you have existing atrium with 40 seats, which is 202. Is that
what is going to be there after you get the addition on?
Mr. Palushaj: 202 seats.
Mr. TaPine: That will be the total with the addition?
Mr. Palushaj: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: Are you planning on putting any new signage on the building?
Mr. VanBrouck: It is all new.
Mr. TaPine: Is that part of the package?
Mr. Nagy: They will come back with the signage.
Mr. Morrow: Just a question. You have eliminated the parking in the front.
Is that correct?
Mr. VanBrouck: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: What is the purpose of the two driveways onto Plymouth Road?
Mr. Nagy: It is needed to satisfy the ordinance requirements.
Mr. Morrow: That answers that. I couldn't see any valid use for it and being
so close to one another, I was wondering if we could close that
off, but if that has to be in there to meet the ordinance, that
is fine.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, to the staff, they have two large landscaped areas
in the center of the parking lot. My count looks about 20
spaces. I see the back raw of space going right up to the back
wall there to the garages. We were discussing wouldn't it be
better to put the landscaping between the houses and the parking
lot for noise and whatever reasons. Build a berm there with
bushes for light, etc. The landscaping in the center is nice but
it only does things for the people parking back there. Is there
a particular reason there has to be landscaping in the center of
the parking lot?
13867
Mr. Nagy: In this case they made a valid effort to preserve the growth of
trees in the middle of the area. That is a noble effort and it
would help soften the parking lot. I think there could be
somewhat of a compromise. They could reduce the size of those
islands a little bit and then shift the parking away from the
south property line and extend that area without the total
elimination of those islands.
Mr. McCann: What we are trying to do is get rid of that back line of spots so
we could put some type of berm there. It would help reduce
noise, help reduce the lights for the neighbors. I know there
may be some surplus on the east portion if you took the right
half of it and made it half the size and lose three trees, you
would get another five spots right there. I am thinking just a
big berm.
Mr. Engebretson: This is what happens when a site plan comes in at the last
minute, and this is not fair to anyone else who is waiting to be
heard here.
Mr. VanBrouck: There were no other changes on that site plan other than the
front island area.
Mr. McCann: Since we have seen it, there was parking in front before.
Mr. VanBrouck: There are three mature trees. It would be a shame to cut dawn
any of those trccs.
Mr. McCann: It would also be a shame to put 20 spots backing right into
someone's backyard and having doors open and close with employe
back there at one in the morning or 12:30 when you are closing
up starting their cars and banging their doors when someone has
to get up at 5:30 in the morning to go to work. You are
encroaching quite a bit back into the residential area so we have
to take those people's concerns in as well. I agree with you. I
hate to see trees cut down. They are beautiful, etc. I also
understand the people that have to get up and go to work in the
morning.
Mr. LaPine: Do we have any extra parking here?
Mr. Nagy: There are two extra parking spaces. At one time there were seven
but since they removed five in front of the building to expand
the landscaping in that area, they are down to two.
Mr. LaPine: What I was thinking, if we could eliminate six parking spaces,
you could move everything forward and you would get these things
away from the wall and maybe have them put landscaping behind
those parking spaces.
Mr. McCann: I am going to make a proposal that we go to the audience to
complete the public hearing aspect of it and then take the site
plan up next week. In the meantime it will give the staff a
chance to look at this to see what they can come up with.
13868
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal?
Nom. Marilyn Barlage, 30536 Elmira: First I would like to read a letter from our
neighbor who was called out of town on business. Mr. Kosmalski
lives next door to us at 30518 Elmira.
"paar Mr. Nagy,
"I am writing to express concern regarding the impact that the
proposed expansion of Archies restaurant will have on home owners
and tax payers directly south of this property. Although I am
unable to attend the council meeting, I have reviewed a drawing
prepared by Van Brouch & Associates dated 12-12-94 and revised
1-26-95. The proposed scope illustrates the addition of parking
spaces within close proximity (5 feet) of an existing wall that
serves as a physical barrier between residential and commercial
property. We do not oppose the owners' wishes to expand.
Archies has been a successful business and a good neighbor, and
we are confident that neither of those assets will change. In
the event the details as illustrated on the drawing referenced
above are now under consideration, we request that all parties
involved in the planning and approval process incorporate the
following improvements: 1) Increase the distance separating the
parking lot from the existing wall from 5 feet to 25 feet. This
can be accomplished without the loss of parking spaces. 2) Add
single or multiple rows of mature evergreens that will be dense
enough to block the glare from headlights and the noise that will
`... be associated with this "potential" loitering area for both
patrons and non-patrons. The natural setting with an abundance
of trees and plants that made our property attractive at the time
of purchase has already been depleted by a previous expansion. I
believe this proposed addition will have a detrimental impact on
my property value, and I ask you to consider these issues prior
to initiating the approval process. Sincerely, Ron Kosmalski"
My feeling has met with many of the neighbors regarding this
concern. We don't object to the expansion or beer and wine
license but we are concerned that we were here at the podium some
years ago. Archie's in the past wanted to have a banquet room in
the back and it was turned down. We are kind of afraid that this
is what this will turn into if the proposed beer, wine and liquor
license is issued. We have a concern about privacy and noise as
Mr. McCann addressed. We think if there was a raising of the
wall and mature evergreens so people could not look into our
yards. We have pools and little children. We wonder about the
lighting. We would like the lighting to be facing north. We
were wondering about the hours of lighting. Right now we have a
huge light that just bears into the yard and into the rooms and
it is from the Oldsmobile dealer across Plymouth Road, so we were
wondering about the lighting and if the lighting would be on all
night or turned off at a certain hour, and what the hours of the
13869
restaurant would be with the beer, wine and liquor if it is
approved. I have some pictures here of the yards, etc. The
islands that they are talking about leaving with the mature trees
,` are very nice but the mature trees have no foliage at the bottom
and you can see Plymouth Road without any barriers.
Jean Kelly, 30554 Elmira: I am a neighbor of Mrs. Barlage and I agree with
everything she said. Mr. Alanskas did mention a real concern of
ours. Our house is behind the parking lot of Archie's and my
bedroom window has headlights glaring in at night. If cars were
allowed to come any further, they would be in the bedroom. That
is a real concern. I do believe it would be a very big detriment
to allow any encroachment further back towards our property.
Mr. Engebretson: So you don't want to see any expansion?
Ms. Kelly: I would prefer not to see expansion but if it is going to go
there, there has to be some kind of consideration given to the
neighbors.
Mr. Engebretson: So if the extension were to occur and if that last row of parking
spaces was eliminated and there was some berm and landscaping put
there, would you object?
Ms. Kelly: I would appreciate a taller wall. The noise factor, since the
last expansion, has increased from Plymouth Road. We did lose a
lot of noise barrier from the last extension. It seems that the
height of the parking lot as it stands now is quite a bit higher
than it was originally.
Mr. Engebretson: As you heard that is a concern we have and that will be dealt
with later on by the Engineering Department if this proposal is
successful.
Ms. Kelly: One other concern that I did have is the subject I heard about
the expansion of Milburn Avenue or the changing of Milburn
Avenue. Is this something that the neighborhood is going to be
made aware of?
Mr. Engebretson: I have no idea of what you are talking about. John, do you know
what she is talking about?
Mr. Nagy: Because of the offset between Sears Drive and Milburn Avenue,
they don't line up and with the staggered set of traffic lights,
it has always been a problem to handle that turning movement
particularly from Sears Avenue with so many trucks making
deliveries to the Sears warehouse, that there is a plan now
advanced by the City Engineering Department to bring Milburn
Avenue between Ventura's office building to the east side of the
Chrysler dealer, to bring Milburn Avenue through that area
between that and the muffler shop so it will line up with Sears
Avenue on the north. That way we will have a cross driveway, but
st]Gt
13870
it will not affect the residential neighborhood. The
right-of-way will be taken from the office area and part of the
restaurant property here as well to make that line up. There is
,4411. a plan and the property is being appraised now.
Darlene Miller, 30472 Elmira: First of all, I have lived in Livonia all my life.
I am for community growth. I am for business growth. I frequent
Archie's. My concerns are a few that Mr. McCann raised.
Obviously security. I live alone. In the first three months
that I owned my home last summer I had one theft, an item taken
from my backyard. From the activity going on at the front of my
house, with the neighbors out, we concluded that whoever took the
item, they had access through the backyard. I have kids jumping
the wall and walking in the backyard. That is an issue. With
more traffic and it being closer, obviously there is going to be
more possibilities for mischievous activities. Security is a big
issue, and I just wanted to voice my opinion as far as the
parking lot right up to the wall. I would like some tall
shrubbery, something to block the noise and lights.
John Murphy, 30572 Elmira: That is the second house on the corner. I bought the
house off my father. It has four big evergreens in the backyard
right up against the wall. I don't get that much light but I do
get the noise. You do have a drainage tile that runs eight
houses down right beside the wall. It is about six feet to about
four feet down. It catches Milburn Street in the first catch
basin right by the Chrysler dealer's property. We do have a
drainage problem over there. Archie's parking lot drops about
�.• six to seven feet and they would have to fill it in and then we
would lose the wall, so I would appreciate seeing the wall go up,
parking area go back and some evergreens be put in, tall ones,
not the little ones starting out, tall ones to stop the noise.
The liquor license, beer and wine alright. You get hard liquor
in there and I will get a lawyer. Sears Road, I saw the plans, I
don't see any barricades.
Mr. Engehretson: That is not the issue tonight.
Tim Johnston, 11415 Merriman: I just moved into Livonia. I live off Plymouth and
Merriman Road. I am related to some of the members that have
come up here on this matter of Archie's. Archie's Restaurant is
a good restaurant here in Livonia. I go there a lot. The
proposed plan they have for the establishment of their building
and their parking lot is alright but the matter is the wall, and
you have already covered it, but I have one of the plans from Al
Nowak of the Planning Department and I took this around to some
of the neighbors in the neighborhood. We went over the plans,
and we saw that the island would be alright but they would have
to make it a little smaller. If they would move their parking
spots back, they could still keep their island there and we would
still get at least 15 to 25 feet from that wall with landscaping.
It would be in code for what the City is wanting for the building
13871
construction of this layout. What I have in mind, I removed
eight of the parking spaces and moved them back closer towards
the restaurant itself and leaving the trees for the two islands,
—eflor and it would still give us the 25 feet away from the wall that we
are concerned about. The elevation of the parking lot is another
concern that we had and it was already discussed.
Mr. McCann: What you might want to do if you have comments like that,
obviously we are talking about it but we don't have time to deal
with each change. You might want to contact the staff during the
week. They are going to be reviewing this.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Piercecchi: I share the concerns of these people, and I am very pleased that
Commissioner McCann brought the point out, are we talking about
88-102 parking spaces? I don't know if we have the privilege of
violating our own ordinance but I would assume the Zoning Board
of Appeals certainly would permit that type of deviation from the
norm and put some landscaping back there and please these people.
Mr. Engebretson: I think that is where we need to get. I think there is a
possibility that we can rearrange the parking lot and stay in
line with the ordinance, but if that fails, then perhaps we would
recommend that they go to a deficiency of parking by several
spaces and go to the Zoning Board for their approval. There is a
third alternative, that being that they could eliminate a few
seats in the restaurant, which would shrink the parking lot
requirement. There are multiple ways to go. I am sure we are
likely to hear a tabling motion. I am sure the staff can work
all these details out in the coming week or so.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-2-36 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-14-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-2-36 by
Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver use approval to expand and
increase the seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Milburn and Flamingo Avenues in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 94-12-2-36 until the study meeting
of February 7, 1995.
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: I would like to tell the petitioner that I am not going to be
13872
here for the study meeting next week but I want you to know that
I will be supportive of this proposal if these various changes
that are being discussed are made, and I will guarantee you I
`.► will seek a denying resolution if we don't get the protection
discussed at the back of that property, a minimum of 25 feet,
everything to do with the lighting protection, the greenbelt,
proper trees in there, the wall issue, and all of those things.
I just want you to know so we understand each other where at
least one vote is. The reason I tell you now is because I won't
be here to tell you that next week.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-3
by Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver use approval for a Class C
license for an existing restaurant located on the south side of
Plymouth Road east of Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
35.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence regarding this petition that is not
in common with the other?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go right to the petitioner.
Mr. Palushaj: It is an existing license that we are going to buy. It is a
Class B license and we will convert it into a Class C. We are
going to build a nice place and as it is right now we would like
to give them a glass of wine or beer, whatever they like. That
is about all.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, could you enlighten us on this conversion of a Class B
to a Class C? We just need an explanation before we hear the
waiver use.
Mr. Nagy: It's the first time I have heard about the upgrade. I need to
review it further.
Mr. Engebretson: Is it a license within the City?
Mr. Palushaj: It is a license within the City. It is from the hotel on
Plymouth Road by Stark Road. I think it is the Days Inn.
Mr. Engebretson: Maybe we can get some clarification from the Law Department
relative to the conversion of the Class B license, not that it is
any of our concern. We will just deal with the waiver use issue.
It is just a matter of curiosity as to how that works.
Mr. Nagy: We would still have to deal with it from a zoning standpoint. We
`t..• will do some research on it.
13873
Mr. Palushaj: My attorney was handling it. He said as far as the state there
is no problem.
Mr. Alanskas: By having this license what percent of business are you trying to
pick up with the liquor?
Mr. Palushaj: About 30% more.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I asked, I was there today for lunch at 12:00 and you
were loaded. I had a very small sandwich and I was there for a
total of 40 minute before I got out of there, and I am a fast
eater. My thought is if you had a liquor license, and I drank
and had a cocktail, I would be there for an hour and a half at
one table. I would think you would be losing business by having
a liquor license.
Mr. Palushaj: Right now 8:00 p.m. comes and at 8:30 p.m. it is dead. We would
probably get a later crowd. When people go out to drink they
usually go a little later. Right now on Friday people go out at
4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas: What are your closing hours at the present time:
Mr. Palushaj: Eleven o'clock.
Mr. Alanskas: If you had this license, how late would you be open?
Mr. Palushaj: No later than twelve o'clock, I believe. We have no bar, just
sit-down counter.
Mr. Piercecchi: If your expansion is not approved, would you still put in the
liquor license?
Mr. Palushaj: We haven't thought about it. We believed you would approve us so
we haven't discussed it.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal?
John Murphy, 30572 Elmira: I talked with some of the neighbors. They don't mind
the beer and wine. If they start getting the hard stuff, then we
have a problem. Like the man said, one cocktail leads to another
one. Beer is a lot more filling. Wine usually is not too
filling but you can get a little wasted on that too. Most of the
people behind the restaurant oppose the hard liquor.
Tim Johnston, 11415 Merriman: For the liquor license, I don't have any objection.
I am all for it. The only thing I have to say about that is as
long as they don't have a bar in the restaurant. That is the
only thing I object to.
Mr. Engebretson: And there is none planned.
13874
Marilyn Barlage: We would go with the beer an wine but we don't like the liquor.
In looking among some of the plans I noticed they are going to
have valet parking. For a family restaurant we can't figure out
`r.• why they would need valet parking. We are thinking this is going
to be a more of a banquet type thing and that is why they would
like the liquor license.
Mr. Palushaj: There are no plans for valet parking. I don't know where she saw
that. Also, I don't think we would object too much for Class C
license if you would give us beer and wine. I think we could
handle it with beer and wine. That is about all.
Kelly Johnston, 11415 Merriman: Previous address 30536 Elmira, directly behind
Archie's. I do understand there is a restaurant in the Ramada
Inn, which is, I believe, two doors down from Archie's. There
was a previous incident in the past at my parents' house, a
peeping Tom. The police did come out. We believe this person
did come from this restaurant, which they also have a bar and
they are open late. It could have been a worse incident if the
dog hadn't scared him away. I believe that with extended hours
there is more of a chance with people lingering. There is a
chance of it bringing crime into the area. With my husband not
being home in the summer, I do go to my parents' home in the
summer and sometimes I do walk home on Plymouth Road with my dog,
so personal safety is a factor. I would just hate to see this so
close to my parents' house and the neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask the petitioner to address the question that
we have heard several times tonight relative to intent. The
intent to possibly convert this facility into a banquet hall.
What are your plans there?
Mr. Palushaj: There is no intention of that at all. You need at least 1000
seats. It is just a sit-down restaurant. She mentioned the
restaurant dawn the street, the hotel. That has closed down. We
do attract very good clientele. We never had a problem in the 14
years that we have been there.
Mr. Engebretson: On the public record here you are saying you will never, ever
utilize that facility as a banquet hall. Is that correct?
Mr. Palushaj: We have no intention whatever.
Mr. Alanskas: A few years ago when you came before us for a banquet hall, how
many seats were you asking for then?
Mr. Palushaj: We wanted to see the most we could put there. We checked
recently the nit we could go with is 300 seats if we used the
parking lot next to Midas, but it is not worth spending all that
money for a banquet hall.
Mr. Morrow: What are your hours of operation in the evening?
13875
Mr. Palushaj: We are open until 11:00 p.m. Sundays 8:30 p.m.
Mr. Morrow: Your intent if you get the Class C license, would that change
your hours of operation?
Mr. Palushaj: We still intend to close at 11:00 p.m. but we would probably be
there until midnight.
Mr. Morrow: In other words your doors would close at 11:00 p.m. So you are
closing at that time but the guests may linger later.
Mr. TaPine: It is my understanding, if I heard you correctly, that all you
will have is a service bar. It isn't going to be a bar where
people can sit around and drink all night. Most people go to a
restaurant and have one or two cocktails, a glass of beer, eat
your meal and leave. This isn't like a bar where someone can go
in and drink all night. I don't really see any problem here.
Most restaurants I go to that don't have a bar, just have a
service bar, I have never seen a problem.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-15-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-3 by
\.. Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver use approval for a Class C
license for an existing restaurant located on the south side of
Plymouth Road east of Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
35, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table
Petition 95-1-2-3 until February 14, 1995.
FORMER 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. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-1
by Wilkus Architects requesting waiver use approval to construct a
full service restaurant to be located on the west side of Victor
Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 6.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do I understand there are some new developments on this
proposal?
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter dated January 5, although we received
it in our office on today's date, January 31, 1995, referencing
13876
Petitions 95-1-2-1 and 95-1-2-2. Because of complications
completing the land lease with the property owner we are
respectfully requesting that the City of Livonia postpone the
public hearings scheduled on the above referenced petitions until
the March 28th scheduled meeting. Landform Engineering, Wilkus
Architects, as well as Champp's Entertainment, Inc. sincerely
apologize for any inconvenience this has caused and appreciate
all the effort that was made to keep the schedule we were on.
With any luck we can continue on this project over the next two
months, resolve the outstanding issues, and be ready for the
meeting on March 28th. If you have any questions please don't
hesitate to call me. If for some reason, we are unable to
resolve these issues in the immediate future I will be in touch
to reschedule our applications. That was signed by Darren B.
Lazan of Landform Engineering Company.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. The auditorium is pretty well cleared out
but if anyone has come to address this particular issue pro or
con, we would like to give you the opportunity to make your
comments.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-1-2-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
r.• #1-16-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-1 by
Wilkus Architects requesting waiver use approval to construct a full
service restaurant (Champps Americana) to be located on the west side
of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 95-1-2-1 to date uncertain.
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. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-2-2
by Landform Engineering requesting waiver use approval for a Class C
license for a proposed restaurant to be located on the west side of
Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
13877
#1-17-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 95-1-2-2 by
Landform Engineering requesting waiver use approval for a Class C
r.n license for a proposed restaurant (Champps Americana) to be located on
the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile
Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 95-1-2-2 to date uncertain.
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. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-12-3-11
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#731-94, proposing to vacate South Drive located east of Jarvis Avenue
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the vacating of South Drive. However,
it is recommended that a full width easement for public utilities
and surface drainage be retained over the area to be vacated.
They further state it is their understanding that the south
274.17 feet of Lot 537 will be developed with Lot 538 so that Lot
537 will not be landlocked. Also in our file is a letter from
Consumers Pacer Company stating they have no facilities in the
area of the proposed vacation.
We have also received a letter from Robert B. Rion stating it has
come to my attention that you may again be considering
permanently closing the street, South Drive, that runs next to my
property. It is my understanding that this parcel was offered to
the previous owners, Mr. and Mrs. Parkins, and they declined.
Please be advised that I would accept this addition to my
property if offered, as did Mr. Jablonski, my neighbor across the
street.
I did call Mr. Rion and explained to him the procedures for
vacating and by operation of law upon vacation, the property
would attach to his property, and he was very pleased to hear
that.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, does he also understand that there is to be a full
width easement here?
Mr. Nagy: Yes he does.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess it is fair to characterize this as a housekeeping item.
13878
There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-12-3-11 closed.
,%ww- On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-18-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31, 1995 on Petition 94-12-3-11 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #731-94,
proposing to vacate South Drive located east of Jarvis Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-12-3-11 be approved
subject to the retention of a full width easement to protect existing
public utilities for the following reasons:
1) That the subject road right-of-way is no longer needed for public
access purposes.
2) That the subject road right-of-way can be more advantageously
utilized in private ownership.
3) That vacating of an unused public right-of-way will place the
property back on the City tax roll.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia
Code of Ordinances.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 696th Regular Meeting held on January 17, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
#1-19-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 696th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on January 17, 1995 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Blomberg
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13879
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-8-4
by Windy Knoll Farms requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal
to construct a dental clinic on property located at 36051 Five Mile
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Five Mile Road
between Levan and Golfview Avenue. The proposal is to build a
dental clinic. It will be a single story building with full
basement with the main floor being 5,400 square feet. The site
plan shows parking for this project, required is 38, the site
plan shows 43, so they are conforming in parking. Landscaping,
required is 15% and the site plan shows 59% with most of the area
to the rear to go undisturbed and remain. New landscaping will
dress up the front of the building and will buffer the parking
along Five Mile Road. I think the petitioner has a colored
rendering of the elevation but the building will be a brick
building with an asphalt shingle roof. The rear of the north
elevation shows a flat area in the roof and this is where all
rooftop mechanical equipment will be located. They also
submitted a plan showing this will be screened so none of the
mechanical equipment will be seen in any direction.
Mr. Engehretson: I see the petitioner is ready. We will give him the floor.
Lee Mamola, Project Architect for Mamola Associates Architects: This is a color
rendering of each of the four elevations (He presented the
elevations to the Commission) We have samples of the actual
brick selection. The brick is described as a reddish tone type
brick with accent brick. The accent is a light tan used in a
banding fashion periodically to add relief throughout the form of
the window pattern to add some interest on all sides of the
building. (He presented the site plans) The balance of the site
is to be left intact in its natural state. The only exception
during the course of construction would be the necessity to
construct a storm drain line to the creek. Existing trees on the
site will be protected during the course of construction to
ensure their life after construction as well. The other point we
talked about at the last study meeting had to do with the light
pole heights. We indicated at that time the 20 foot pole height
is fine. We can live with that and intend to do that. The pole
is a prefinished aluminum pole. It is our intention to provide
opaque fencing entirely around the dumpster.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, would you tell us what your plans are relative to relocating
that Belle Drain that flaws on that property?
Mr. Mamola: It is our understanding that there is a resolution, apparently
between the City Engineering Department, the City Council and the
current landowner of this property, to straighten out that
13880
portion of the creek here. It is the doctor's intention to
cooperate with the City Engineering Department to allow that to
occur, and it is the doctor's intention to grant the appropriate
easements to allow that construction to occur. I have seen a
diagram prepared by the Engineering Department and not only would
it somewhat straighten out that creek but it would also
supplement some plantings on one side of the creek as well.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, if I understand correctly, that issue is a matter
between the City and the original property owner. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. EngPhretson: Are you satisfied that there is adequate control there to enforce
the compliance.
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department is not going to issue a permit to
commence construction until that is resolved.
Mr. Engebretson: That sounds like pretty satisfactory insurance to me.
Mr. Pierceachi: John, how much vacant property will be between this site and the
street to the east?
Mr. Nagy: Probably a comparable amount of property as is involved here.
Mr. Morrow: Along the same lines, we do have a potential third builder on
that particular site?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: To follow on John, does this abut the credit union property?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it does on the west.
Mr. Engebretson: So we could look for the possibility of a similar building?
Mr. Nagy: The original parcel was divided into three sections. This is the
center of the three pieces.
Mr. Alanskas: On your site plan your landscaping, isn't that all existing now
in the back of the building. There is nothing new as far as the
back, is there?
Mr. Mamola: South of the dotted line is all existing. We are supplementing
three maybe four canopy trees north of that line.
Mr. Alanskas: The trees you are putting in, how tall will they be?
Mr. Mamola: I believe they are a four inch caliber tree.
13881
Mr. Alanskas: We are always concerned about the neighbors behind you, and with
the existing trccs there now, there is not that much of a screen
for the neighbors. If you could put as much as you could back
`.. there to appease the neighbors.
Mr. Mamola: We certainly would be willing to go along with that. One of
the little difficulties, you might say an alternative choice
would be to look at pine trees. When you put pine trees in a
somewhat forested area, you have to be concerned that the pine
tree will live in the environment that you are going to put it
in. We have a concern about the drainage in this area. I
understand, however, that an Engineering document showing a
schematic sketch that the creek comes down through here, they
feel comfortable with proposing pine trccs down in this area
closer to the residential neighborhood.
Mr. Alanskas: Just so they get as much screening as possible.
Mrs. Blomberg: Mr. Nagy, about this drain they are rerouting, when you reroute
water it normally seeks its own way. Is there going to
be rock or anything put in there so it won't erode?
Mr. Nagy: The banks will be stabilized.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, just to follow up on Mrs. Blomberg's question, at whose
expense will all these improvements be made? I don't know if it
really matters, but is the City coming into this?
,our Mr. Nagy: The burden is entirely on the existing property owner and the
City of Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: The previous property owner?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, Greenfield Construction Company.
Mr. Engebretson: We all recall vividly that there are some severe erosion problems
back there. It would sure be good if we could alleviate those
problems, and it sounds like the Engineering Department is
heading in that direction, and apparently Greenfield has agreed
to do that. There is really nothing to discuss with this
gentlemen but I feel it is still good to have that a part of the
record.
Mr. Piercecchi: If I understood the gentleman correctly, they have no objection
to putting pine trees in there as a screen so I would like to
have whoever makes the approving resolution to include that,
because they really screen. Is it possible to include that?
Mr. Engebretson: It certainly is. You may make the resolution or you may amend
the motion if the maker doesn't comply with your request. You
will get it in one way or another.
13882
Mr. Morrow: I just want a point of clarification. Did the petitioner say
if he were to put pine trccs there, there would be a question if
they would survive?
Mr. Mamola: That is correct. What I would prefer to do, I would prefer to
consult our landscape architect and if in his professional
judgment he feels the pine trccs would survive, we would
certainly be willing to cooperate and provide the screening.
However, we would certainly hate to go to the expense of
installing some significant trees if there was a likelihood
they might not survive.
Mr. Morrow: Sir, we may be in luck because we have a couple of landscape
architects with us tonight.
Mr. Nagy: There is an evergreen tree called a Hemlock, that is shade
tolerant that lets it grow in a dense woods. It did very well in
the restoration plan for the Livonia Parishes Credit Union where
they inadvertently went into that area with their grading
equipment. They are restoring that area with Hemlocks. The
Hemlock would do well in that area.
Mr. Morrow: Are you satisfied with that input? If your landscape architect
agrees with our landscape architect, I think we can do business.
Mr. Mamola: I think we are all on the same wavelength here.
Mr. Alanskas: On your elevation on the top of the peak on the roof, will that
basically be as high as your neighbor to the east or higher?
Nmy
Mr. Mamola: I think their roof only went up in the last day or two. I would
say it is going to be very much the same. You may technically be
off a few inches but the distance between the buildings you would
hardly notice.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#1-20-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 95-1-8-4 by Windy Knoll Farms requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct a dental clinic on property located at
36051 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as SP-1 dated 1/13/95 by Mamola
Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to; except for the fact that the easement for the Bell Creek
Drain located on the subject property shall be relocated to the
satisfaction of the City's Engineering Department;
2) That the height of the light standards for the parking lot shall
not exceed 20 ft. ;
Nom.
13883
3) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be doubled
striped;
4) That the trash dumpster shall be enclosed on three sides by brick
walls that match the clinic's exterior, and the entrance shall be
concealed by two wooden gats;
5) That the Landscape Plan, defined as LP-1 dated 1/13/95 by Mamola
Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
6) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded lawn areas, and all planting materials shall be installed
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
7) That the Elevation Plan, defined as A-4 dated 1/13/95 by Mamola
Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
8) That the roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened as shown
on the schematic cross-section drawing dated Jan. 23, 1995 by
Mamola Associates Architects;
9) That the canopy trccc proposed to the south along the drainage
easement area may be substituted by evergreen trccc such as pine
or hemlock.
`r.. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: We do have one additional item. That is correspondence that
comes to us from the Inspection Department pertaining to an item
brought up at our last meeting. It is a letter addressed to Mr.
Shane from Mr. MacDonald dated January 31 and it reads as
follows: On January 6, 1995, a violation was sent to Goodwill
Industries to remove the drop box and semi trailer from the
property at the Weirton Plaza Shopping Center. They were removed
by January 24, 1995. Last November Olympia Fitness Center
occupied the space at the rear of the new Arbor Drug Store. They
moved in without making arrangements for a permanent sign and
relied on a temporary banner for identification. An inspector
informed them that they could not have the banner for more than a
short period of time. He suggested that they contact a sign
company to apply for a permit for a proper sign to replace the
banner. On January 17th, the inspector observed a second banner
had been erected and sent a violation ordering the removal of the
banners no later than January 30, 1995. As of yesterday (this
was dated January 31st) the large banner attached to the railing
around the truckwell has been removed. The smaller banner over
the entrance door remains but should be removed shortly.
Finally, Farmer Jack was expected to have made repairs to the
damaged asphalt areas before the end of the 1994 paving season.
13884
Attached is a copy of a letter from Ted Tulupman, Property
Manager for Farmer Jacks, which states why it wasn't done, and
that letter goes on to say "That this project will be given
priority consideration in the spring of 1995" and I trust that
Mr. MacDonald will hold them accountable to that commitment.
That concludes the report from the Inspection Department dealing
with three items that we expressed concern with at our last
meeting.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 697th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on January 31, 1995 was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R. Lee Morrow, Secretary
C &L4c
Jay( Engebrrtson, Chairman
r,`, jg