HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-06-21 13486
MINUTES OF THE 686th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMIISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 21, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 686th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Raymond W. Tent William LaPine
Members absent: Robert Alanskas Brenda Lee Fandrei
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning
Director, and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
`�.► Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, presented a ten year service recognition pin to Ray
Tent in recognition for 12 years 11 months of service on the Planning
Commission.
Mr. McCann Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
94-4-1-11 by Angelo Forest and Zef Ivezaj requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill
Road and Ellen Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to
OS and R3-B.
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 sanitary sewer or storm sewer systems
readily available to service the proposed zoning areas
(current outlets are near Gill Road) . They stated further
they had no objections to the rezoning proposal. We also have
13487
received a letter from Brian and Diane Ennis of 35168 Morlock
stating they support the rezoning but do request that no
construction is begun until the water pressure situation is
resolved in their area. Also in our file is a letter from
Iulio Tori stating as the property owner of Lot #6 of Fair Way
Subdivision I want to be placed on record (in writing) that I
object to this rezoning. The reason I object is because it
would hinder the development of the whole strip by breaking up
the residential and office service zoning. It would seem to
be better to keep all office service and all residential
together or zone the front 240' office service and the rear to
R-3B.
Mr. Engebretson: I think this would be an appropriate point to bring up another
letter we have here from the State of Michigan addressed to
Mr. Beckley, Director of Public Works, that has to do with the
issue of the water tap moratorium that we discussed at the
last meeting. For the benefit of the folks in the audience
and others on the Commission, this letter advises us that we
are going to be given authority to have an additional 740
single family home water taps over and above the 80 that are
remaining in our account. Regarding the previous conservation
plan, it all came about when the water pressure collapsed in
1988. While we were concerned about this particular proposal
and also others, it may be problematical from the standpoint
of the water tap moratorium. That issue apparently has been
resolved. With that, would the petitioner please come forward
and tell us your reason for making this request.
`r.► Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road: I represent the petitioners, Mr. Forest
and Mr. Ivezaj. Mr. Forest has been a builder in the Livonia
area for a number of years. He has built primarily industrial
buildings and commercial buildings. He has a business in the
City. Mr. Ivezaj is a developer. You probably recall he
developed Van Road south of Seven Mile Road about two years
ago, which was a subdivision of approximately the same size as
this one, 20 lots, which subdivision is completely filled up
with the exception of maybe one or two vacant lots. Beautiful
homes over there. This is the type of development they have
planned for this particular piece of property. I am sure the
Commission is well aware the petition fits within the Master
Plan that has been adopted for the City for that particular
area, and also the north side of Eight Mile Road in Farmington
Hills has been mainly developed commercial and that type of a
situation. I think we are all aware that Eight Mile Road in
this particular stretch is probably the last remaining two
lane stretch of Eight Mile Road all the way from I-275 to the
east side. I am sure that is going to be on the drawing
boards for expansion to a five-lane road very shortly. We
have a drawing of what the subdivision and a little bit of the
office usage is. I passed out a small print of that which
shows that there are 22 lots which will be in this subdivision
of approximately 80 foot frontage lots similar to the Van Road
Development. The office building there is scheduled to be two
13488
units side by side that would be approximately 2400 square
feet. It is a one-story type of building similar to the
building that is at Eight Mile and Gill Road that was built
about four or five years ago and is very successfully leased
out. The petitioners feel there is a market in this area,
especially on Eight Mile Road. We have people that I have
talked to that were looking for an office type of development
in that area. It is obviously a developing area. A lot of
new residential has come in there in the last few years. It
seems like an ideal place to build offices. Essentially that
is all I have to say. I would be glad to answer any
questions.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Tangora, do your clients currently own the property?
Mr. Tangora: They own part of it, approximately half of it. They own two
lots and the other lots are under option.
Mr. Morrow: It will be their intention to develop the property themselves?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: If the rezoning were to be granted, what is the time frame we
are looking at as far as development based on whatever input
you have?
Mr. Tangora: We pretty much lost 1994 because of the planning process. It
is usually about six months. So we have to go through the
zoning process and then come in with the engineering for the
'411ft. planning process, which will take us well into the beginning
of 1995. I think the developers are trying to get the
planning process done by the end of the year or spring of 1995
so they can start building homes in 1995.
Mr. Morrow: It will be developed as soon as you get through the process?
It won't lay fallow for a year or so looking for buyers?
Mr. Tangora: Again, both of them are builders and both of them are
developers. I can't guarantee that they will build the homes
there. Their method of developing is to develop it into lots
with all the improvements and then sell off most of the lots
to builders.
Mr. Tent: What you are proposing is the office building would go up
first before you went ahead with the residential?
Mr. Tangora: Not necessarily. I think they would build the office when
they get some tenants. They would obviously wait for the
rezoning and then put it in the hands of a broker to see if
there are tenants and then start to build the office
building.
13489
Mr. Tent: Then you have no commitments here as far as the office is
concerned?. You have feelers out?
Mr. Tangora: I have feelers out. I have a few of my clients that are
`'o' interested in relocating over on Eight Mile Road but obviously
it is a long way away from that process.
Mr. Tent: In ballpark figures, the cost of the homes in that project.
Mr. Tangora: Probably over $200,000.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Tangora, have your clients tried to purchase any of the
other vacant parcels along there? One of the letters we
received mentioned they would like to see this developed as
all one strip, which I agree with 100%. It seems to me
someone should try to purchase all the land and have one good
size subdivision. Have they made any concrete effort to
purchase any of the other land?
Mr. Tangora: There have been talks but I am not sure how far they
proceeded. From what I understand some of the people that
have lots there are looking for a higher price, something a
commercial piece of property would attract. I think that is
their idea to develop it commercial rather than residential
and office type of development.
Mr. LaPine: The only argument you can give those people is whatever
happens on these lots is going to more or less set the
precedent of what is going to happen on the balance of the
lots.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora, would it be your expectation that both of the
office buildings would be developed concurrently?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding the Eight Mile Road widening, does your plan take
that into account?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak
for or against this proposal.
Charles Myron: I am the President of Deer Creek Homeowners Association. Deer
Creek is the subdivision immediately to the south of this with
an entrance at Eight Mile and Ellen. We are basically in
favor of the proposal but we have two concerns we would like
to express to the board. The first one has been addressed and
that is that the office structures, in our opinion, should
mirror at least in size and height the Gill Road office
building. I believe that has been addressed. The second one
13490
is perhaps a more practical concern. We are concerned about
the adverse affect this might have on our water pressure. The
water pressure in our area right now, in our opinion, is
woefully inadequate. That is the primary concern in the way
N"" this proposal has been presented. If we add additional homes
to the water supply we have right now, it is going to
significantly reduce the water that is available to us. That
is the primary concern if that is acceptable to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to ask Mr. Nagy, even though this is a little out
of his area, if you could shed any knowledge on the area
regarding concern of the water pressure, the impact 20 or 30
additional homes would have on that.
Mr. Nagy: You are right, it is not really my expertise. I do know that
the final solution to the water pressure problem is the
extension of the water transmission line coming through
Oakland County from the Port Huron inlet. It is being
constructed now. It is probably anywhere from 18 months to
two years away from actually being constructed and on line,
which would resolve all the pressure problems. So I think if
this really takes a year, it is better to go through the
process and by the time the actual homes are constructed we
should be near the realization of that transmission line. I
really think that is the best hope we can have. Your actual
question as to what an additional 21 homes would have on that
area, I think that is something we would better be advised
when we actually get the preliminary plat. If the zoning
r► should be successful, there will be a similar hearing on the
actual design of the subdivision itself at which time we will
have input from the various City departments, including
Engineering and the Water Department, and maybe by that time
we will have more qualified people to really address properly
what impact that would have. We could say with certainly
rather than just my opinion.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you recall haw many homes were built in the Camborne
Subdivision at the corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh?
Mr. Nagy: Between the two subdivisions there are a little over 80 total
lots, 40 something on each side in the first stage. When the
whole area is built out, there will be in excess of 240 homes.
Mr. Engebretson: The reason I asked that is that is just located a few blocks
from my home and those homes were built during the last couple
of years and we haven't noticed any impact, but your area may
have less water pressure than we do. That seems to be the
case. I know it has been woefully low in your area at times.
Mr. Tent: I would like to address that too. This is just a zoning
request now. They will be before us for site plan and at that
13491
particular time these problems that you are concerned with,
with the pressure and the water system, would be resolved
then, because if they don't have an adequate watering system
at that particular time, then there would be no reason for
going forward with this proposal. All we are doing now is the
zoning.
Mr. Engebretson: Not to dwell on the point but I know it is an important point
to you, and this letter from the State of Michigan that I
referred to earlier is going to grant these additional water
taps subject to the City adopting ordinances that would
restrict sprinkling to this odd and even plan that is in
effect right now, and apparently that is going to happen. So
while we are having this difficulty there are going to be some
restrictions put in place on a more lasting basis. Then when
this new service is completed that Mr. Nagy was talking about,
I think we are home free.
Resident living at 34750 Norfolk: Where is the street going to come in to the
new lots?
Mr. Engebretson: From Eight Mile Road. If you will look at the board, the lots
on the bottom of the board are butting up to the residential
lots just to the south, so the street that goes out to Eight
Mile Road is going to come down and dead end behind that other
subdivision.
Resident: Haw far are the houses going to be placed from the property
lines?
Mr. Nagy: From the proposed street, where it turns and parallels Eight
Mile Road, the depth of those lots are 120 feet. The setback
from the sidewalk to the front of the house is 35 feet. The
minimum rear yard requirement has to be 30 feet. It will
likely be greater than that but those are the minimums. 35
foot front yard and 30 foot rear yards. In between that is
where the houses will be constructed.
Resident: Are they going to divide the yards with privacy fences?
Mr. Engebretson: No, that is not required anywhere in the City. With
residential abutting residential there is no requirement for
any kind of screen.
Resident: In Deer Creek on Norfolk you flooded everybody. It will
happen again.
Mr. Engebretson: I will take exception to your characterization of what
happened so it is hard to respond. I know you have had some
drainage problems and there have some attempts to mitigate
those problems.
13492
Mr. McCann: I just wanted to say you can have this drawing. It shows how
the subdivision lays out to your sub. You can take it back to
your seat and review it.
— KathyHubchik, 34700 Norfolk: I am also delivering ng a letter from one of our
neighbors that couldn't be here tonight. Our concern is this
new sub backing up to our property line and not really having
the same synopsis that happened at Deer Creek when our lots
were big and natural and then a sub comes in and it is a
totally different scenario and there were a lot of problems.
We want to avoid those problems.
Mr. Engebretson: We certainly can appreciate those concerns. I believe it is
fair to say that the development could occur right now without
much of any improvements without any rezoning perhaps with a
few less homes. The fact is that is zoned residential and it
is certainly very likely that is going to be developed as
residential either in the proposed manner or in its current
zoning district.
Ms. Hubchik: What about the existing residents that are already in that
area when the property isn't graded properly? What is going
to happen? We would like to avoid something happening. We
would like to stop it before it happens.
Mr. Engebretson: We understand that. I would like to just mention that part of
this process that Mr. Tangora has referred to as taking six
months or more, would include the Engineering Department
becoming involved to guard against the kinds of concerns you
'"w just addressed. So those are issues that are more properly
addressed at that particular point. I want to give you some
confidence that there is a very important step in this process
that addresses that point of concern and yet this is not the
forum. This is not where we have the expertise to deal with
that.
Ms. Hubchik: Well then where do we voice those concerns? It sounds like
you can rezone and it doesn't really matter what we say but we
want to be heard because even on Norfolk when the new houses
went in, then the City came out and gave their approval and
the driveways were too high and all the water is rushing in
and flooding the neighbor's front yard. That was just two
years ago when that happened. Who do we address this to? Who
is going to guarantee that these situations are not going to
occur?
Mr. McCann: I don't want you to take what the Chairman said as being wrong
but we have to look at today's zoning question. We are
looking at this Future Land Use Plan which has this as office
development. We are looking at this as office which also has
a subdivision backing up so we figured this gives it a natural
blend. The existing houses don't end up right next to
offices. We put a sub in and the people that are going to be
`r.
13493
buying in the sub backing up to the office know what they are
getting into. In your situation you have very legitimate
concerns. We deal with these concerns a lot. These people
*Jaw Engineering
have to come back for site plan approval. The
Engineering Department will do a report when they do their
site plan approval as to what the needs are. My suggestion to
you would be that in the meantime contact the Building
Department and ask them to contact you when the reviewing
happens so you and your neighbors can get your concerns
together, formalize them in a letter, take it to the Building
Department and ask them to address those issues.
Ms. Hubchik: I have one other statement as far as the office building going
in. Have you driven down there recently? At Eight Mile and
Gill they have signs up there all the time. They can't keep
that fully occupied.
Mr. McCann: I understand. Have you tried to rent office space in Livonia?
We have the highest occupancy rate in the Wayne County area.
Ms. Hubchik: But as you drive all over all you see are vacant buildings.
All the way down Eight Mile Road.
Mr. McCann: I have tried to rent them and the highest dollar rent is right
here in Livonia.
Ms. Hubchik: I see it every day and I live right there. All I have to do
is go to Eight Mile and Farmington. There is a Krogers. Half
of that place is vacant. There is a half structure never
'troy completed. There is just a steel structure sitting there.
Across the street there is an office building completely
vacant.
Mr. McCann: I think the figures aren't agreeing with you as far as
occupancy. I live in Livonia. We on the Planning Commission
have been trying to deal with the situation with the Eight
Mile shopping center there and the structure. The City is
working on that. We are having a hard time trying to get a
solution to that. I can't answer all of your questions with
regard to why we need this. We have to look at the Future
Land Use Plan, we have to look at the current land use, we
have to see what type of zoning we feel best fits in here, and
if you don't believe that office zoning belongs here, it is a
legitimate concern. If you think residential abutting Eight
Mile Road is more appropriate, that may be so. We are willing
to listen to that. That is what we are here for tonight.
Ms. Hubchik: In my opinion there is all kinds of office space already,
especially on Eight Mile Road. As far as butting up to our
property, we have to wait for the Engineering Department?
13494
Mr. Engebretson: Yes. Why don't you call the Engineering Department and
express your concern relative to the past situation. We can't
really address those issues in the same terms they can. If
you are aware of specific problems, let them know. I am just
**a"' trying to be helpful at this point. It is really not an issue
as far as this particular petition is concerned but based on
the fact that you issued a rather strong statement relative to
your concerns of water drainage, which is going to come more
from these residential lots being developed than the office,
then why don't you help the Engineering Department so they are
prepared to deal with these things when the time comes.
Ms. Hubchik: Right. You also made the comment about the sprinkler systems,
the odd and even days. Anyone on Norfolk can't even use their
sprinkler systems now because they don't even have enough
water pressure to run them. An odd/even day system won't help
that area.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to go up to that neighborhood again tomorrow
becau e I have seen some sprinklers running there and I am
going to investigate that for myself.
Mr. Morrow: As far as lease signs for office buildings, if my memory
serves me correctly, there are 1,000 square feet at Gill and
Eight Mile Road. It is an advertising ploy that companies use
that if the building is chuck full, they put up a For Lease
sign in hopes someone comes in and they will steer them in
another direction. Buildings that are 85% occupied are
considered fully leased. That is the only office building
stew that I am aware of between Newburgh and even as far as
Merriman, where it is mostly industrial. They will have to
come back for site plan for the office. If the residential
zoning is approved, they have to come back for preliminary
plat approval. There will be a public hearing on that. All
the issues that were raised tonight as far as engineering,
water taps, will be addressed at that time. They will not be
given permission to sell those lots, to build those lots until
all your concerns are alleviated. As far as the Planning
Commission guaranteeing that, we cannot guarantee that. That
is not our prerogative. That is why we have an Engineering
Department to address all those types of things. So just to
reiterate here, it is not that we are not as concerned as you
are. I live in the very same area and I am as concerned about
water pressure as anyone in the audience tonight, but by the
same token these issues will be addressed when those homes
come back with plans.
Mr. Engebretson: Can you water?
Mr. Morrow: I can water but you have to pick your spots. I have not
really seen the stringent odd/even. I think if the City puts
teeth in the ordinance and make the people do odd/even, I
`f..
13495
think we will see a dramatic change. I don't think that is
enforced right now, but right now we are on a voluntary basis
but there is a water pressure problem.
`"" Giovanni Agazzi, 34750 Norfolk: My question is I tried to split my lot which
was 140'x400'. You said no I can't. Now every couple of
years you guys change the schedule. Now you say you have 30
feet from my backyard to the building. This is a joke.
Mr. Engebretson: Wait a minute. We didn't say that. We said 35 feet was the
minimum from the home. That makes you just like everybody
else in Livonia.
Mr. Agazzi: Why don't you let me split mine? I know you are trying to get
more tax. I understand that. If he needs more land, he can
have my backyard. If the price is right, I can sell it. The
engineer he can decide how he can blend it all. Norfolk is
flooded all the time.
Mr. rapine: Mr. Chairman, before a motion is made, I want to speak against
the proposal. I have heard comments here tonight that there
is no office space available. I disagree with that. The
office space on Gill Road and Eight Mile Road, which I pass
every single day going home, the signs up there, it was
indicated they just put them up there as a ploy, as far as I
am concerned they are breaking the ordinance. They shouldn't
have a For Lease sign up there if they don't have space to
fill. Secondly, we rezoned some property on Farmington Road
just north of the Knights of Columbus hall for office over a
soft. year ago and I don't see anybody wanting that office so bad
that somebody has built a building on it. It doesn't make any
sense to me to put any more office on Eight Mile Road. We
should stop at Gill Road and develop all that parcel from
there on west into residential. We don't need any more office
service. There is all kinds of office service available.
Until somebody can prove to me that there is a cry out there
for all this office service, I don't see any reason to rezone
this property to the west. I have no objection to the R-3B
but I would like to see the developer buy more of the land to
develop this as one big piece, but to rezone that property to
OS, I don't think we need any more offices up in that area of
the City.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-1-11 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#6-112-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
June 21, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-4-1-11
by Angelo Forest and Zef Ivezaj requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill Road and
13496
Ellen Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to OS and
R3-B, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 94-4-1-11 be approved for the following
reasons:
*ft.
1) That the proposed changes of zoning are consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan.
2) That the proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning to the OS district will provide
for a buffer or transition zone between Eight Mile Road and the
residential uses to the south.
FURTER 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: Tent, Morrow, McCann
NAYS: LaPine, Engebretson
ABSENT: Alanskas, Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
*ft. 94-3-3-3 by Angelo Forest and Zef Ivezaj requesting to vacate a
portion of Laurel Avenue south of Eight Mile Road between Ellen
Drive and Gill Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating their office has no objections to this vacating
proposal. We have also received a letter from Consumers Power
stating they have no facilities in the subject area;
therefore, they have no objections. We have also received a
letter from Raymond and Barbara Amin stating they live at
34970 Norfolk which is directly behind the property that such
petitions are requesting to be rezoned and vacated. We would
like the road not to be vacated because when we purchased our
property we intended to do a lot split, however if it is to be
vacated, we, like the rest of the neighbors, would agree as a
whole to a mutual decision. We would like further
correspondence as to the updates of this property, further
meetings etc. to be sent to our home address. We apologize
for not being here tonight as we are out of town. Thank you
for taking the time to read our opinion of said matter.
13497
Mr. Morrow: Is that Lot 23A they were talking about?
Mr. Nagy: They just give their address as 34970 Norfolk.
Mr. Tangora: This is just a logical extension of the rezoning petition.
This enables us to plan a subdivision and utilize all the
lots.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-3-3-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#6-113-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-3-3-3 by
Angelo Forest and Zef Ivezaj requesting to vacate a portion of
Laurel Avenue south of Eight Mile Road between Ellen Drive and Gill
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
94-3-3-3 be approved subject to the retention of an easement over
the west 18 feet of the subject area to protect an existing 8"
water main for the following reasons:
1) That the subject street right-of-way is no longer needed for public
access purposes.
2) That the subject street right-of-way can be more advantageously
used in private ownership.
3) That the subject street right-of-way would be placed on the tax
rolls of the City of Livonia.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Alanskas, Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-5-2-14 by Jerald Gottlieb requesting waiver use approval to
construct single family cluster homes to be located on the north
side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
13498
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating a determination should be made at this time as to
whether the proposed public street will be connected through
properties to the north to the dead end of Brookview Drive
'""' within the Sunset Park Estates Subdivision. In the
alternative, a cul-de-sac should be built within the subject
petition area. We have also received a letter from the Fire
Marshal stating he has no objection to this proposal.
However, this division has a number of questions regarding the
following: a proper water main with hydrant placement for fire
protection, the width of the road, and the dead end with no
turnaround provided. It is anticipated that these concerns
will be fully addressed with this office in the very near
future.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Jerry Gottlieb, 30135 Summit, Farmington Hills: I thought this would not need a
lot of explanation. It just seems to fit in so good in this
neighborhood. It is bounded by office services to the east.
It touches this R-7 to the north and the R-lA and it just
seems to be a good continuation and improvement to the
neighborhood. I am all for building new because I think it is
an encouragement to people who live in the neighborhood to
perhaps even improve their homes. On this property right now
there is an older home built in 1947 or so and an old chicken
coop. People to the west have told me they would like to see
that taken out. I am here to answer any questions you might
have.
tir.
Mr. Miller presented the site plan.
Mr. Miller: They are proposing nine cluster single-family detached homes.
There is a T on the road, which was required by the Fire
Marshal. (He then presented the building elevations) . They
will be brick frontage with T-111 siding.
Mr. Gottlieb: These will all be customer selections. They will have their
options and their choices. Driving around trying to get a
feel for the market today, I see in a lot of new subdivisions
this particular look is very popular. There will be a whole
list of options that the customers will have should they
decide to change anything. If they wanted more brick or if
they wanted a different kind of material, I am going to leave
that up to the customers. I have only chosen what I have seen
driving through five or six different communities.
Mr. Engebretson: Will each of these lots be owned by the individuals as
contrasting with a condominium type of development?
Mr. Gottlieb: Yes. I am planning on giving them a deed to a unit that will
be the same as a residential lot. It will be 58' by 110'.
13499
Mr. Engebretson: The references we have to sodding and irrigation and the
bermcd areas?
Mr. Gottlieb: That will be my obligation.
Mr. Engebretson: You do that but each individual homeowner would be responsible
for landscaping his own property?
Mr. Gottlieb: Right. In the front there is a 75 foot buffer for a setback
from Six Mile Road. That would end up being what would be
owned by the association, which would for their annual dues to
maintain. It will be a landscaped area 75'x110'.
Mr. Engebretson: That will all be developed by you as these homes are being
built?
Mr. Gottlieb: Right.
Mr. Engebretson: The same as the landscaping on the eastern edge of the
property?
Mr. Gottlieb: On the eastern edge of the property we are going to put a
screen fence the whole length of the property. I want a
little buffer between the office services to the east.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Gottlieb, will these homes have basements?
Mr. Gottlieb: They will be full basements. They will be about 1750 to 1800
square feet with two and a half baths.
Mr. Tent: Two and three bedrooms?
Mr. Gottlieb: No they will all be three bedrooms.
Mr. Tent: What will these homes sell for?
Mr. Gottlieb: I would say they would be at least $160,000 plus. That is the
base price that I am looking at at this point. They may end
up going for more.
Mr. Tent: Could you reduce the price a little more by getting rid of the
splash block of brick at the side? We discussed that at one of
the study meetings. From what I see there, you are going to
raise it another foot. That is not what we are looking for.
You have looked all around the City and you say this is what
the customer wants. I would like to see some brick on that
house.
Mr. Gottlieb: I am not one to impose my views upon a customer. I would give
them a lot of options. If they would like to have all brick,
I would be happy to put it on for them.
13500
Mr. Tent: What you have here you haven't given us anything really
because in your discussions with us all you are telling us is
you will build what they want. In other words, what we are
doing here is a waiver approval to construct some single
family homes. We are trying to tie you down to your
architecture. What you are saying is whatever they want we
will build for them. If they want an all frame home, we will
put an all frame home in there. If they want higher brick,
you will put higher brick. Why can't we start out at the
beginning and make it look attractive and throw some brick up
along the side?
Mr. Gottlieb: I have always found when it comes to attractive each
individual has their own opinions to what is attractive.
That is why there are a lot of different baseball teams,
football teams. That is why there are a lot of different
automobiles made in the world today. I want to start out with
the premise that these homes will have the front as I
selected, which like I say my marketing shows this is what the
people are buying today.
Mr. Tent: What City is that in?
Mr. Gottlieb: I have gone through Canton. I have gone through Wixom. I
have gone through Livonia and right in this community.
Mr. Tent: You show me where they have homes with one raw of bricks along
the side of the house and they call it a brick house. I
couldn't support this project just based on that. I know we
need some homes here but unless we can tie you down to
specifics, I want a brick house. If you want to go half way
up fine, but if you just want to put a few bricks there at the
bottom, forget it. You are talking about the wood on the
side, whether it will be aluminum or vinyl siding. You said
you will probably put up T-111 or aluminum or whatever they
might want. For that price, $160,000, and that type of
building you are putting up, you could show some better
pictures. Are you going to have sidewalks?
Mr. Gottlieb: Yes. Let me ask you Mr. Tent, I developed a lovely
subdivision right here in Livonia. It is called Sheffield No.
2. It is an extension of Curtis and it is just east of Wayne
Road. I don't know if you are familiar with that subdivision.
It is a beautiful subdivision. I maintained a high standard
there in architectural control. I wouldn't let anything that
was substandard go in there. I don't know if you are familiar
with the office building that I built within the last five
years on the corner of Seven Mile Road and Merriman. It is on
the southeast corner. It is a beautiful building and I still
get calls today from people wanting to know where I bought the
brick, etc. I would like to set your mind at ease, I am not
in there to building something substandard or something
13501
that will not enhance the neighborhood. Anything I have ever
done, Livonia has benefited by it. I tore down a house over
here. I built four beautiful homes right across the street on
Shadyside.
Mr. Tent: All I am asking for is a little more brick.
Mr. Gottlieb: I say let the customers make the selection. People want their
choices and I want to give it to them. If they want the whole
house in brick, I will be happy to do that. I am certainly
not going to let them pick some shabby material because it
wouldn't be in my best interest to develop a subdivision
having something substandard. I am going to make sure that
any selections are going to enhance the subdivision, the City
and the neighborhood.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, considering this is a waiver use approval for single
family cluster homes, is it appropriate to tie in conditions
such as 50% of homes should be covered with brick?
Mr. Nagy: It is appropriate. The purpose for the option is to deal with
the various elements of the site plan to tie into the
approving resolution.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Gottlieb, I understand where you are coming fLom and I try
not to interfere with business people as much as I can in the
City. I want to encourage you business people. You have done
a fine job in Livonia. I have been on the Planning Commission
when you have been before us before and I have always been
happy with your work. To be honest with you, you came in with
family cluster homes in a very nice area in Livonia and it
bothered me a little bit. I sat down with the Planning staff
last week when we planned this and said what type of homes are
these. They said he is doing a good job. The lots are going
to be narrower. There are going to be a very few changes from
the R-1, which is our minimum development in the City for
single family residential. Basically what you are doing is
you don't have enough width so you are going to single family
cluster. I don't have a problem with that. I looked at the
site plan. I think you have come up with a good solution.
The staff agrccs. However, the lots are going to be a little
narrow. When I looked at your drawings with two foot of
brick, the tendency is that the vinyl will not last,
especially when the homes are closer together. I really
believe 50% height of brick would be appropriate in this
manner since it is going to be smaller lots. The homes are
going to be tighter together and it is under our single family
cluster home waiver use. Would it be possible for you to
agree to that in this instance?
Mr. Gottlieb: I don't see a problem with that frankly, but what do I do when
a customer says I was driving around and I saw a home in
13502
another subdivision and I liked that look.
Mr. McCann: How many subdivisions do you go into, including your own
Sheffield Estates, where they are all brick homes and that is
part of the requirements of the subdivision development?
Mr. Gottlieb: Those homes today would sell for $250,000 plus.
Mr. McCann: I understand. That is why I am not saying they have to be all
brick. Fifty percent is where I am looking. Up past the
first window area. That is where it gets the roughest wear.
That is where you are going to see the most deterioration.
I see a lot of homes with 50% brick above the first window
level that look very nice. They wear well. They look good
and they last. That has pretty much been the standard
throughout the City of Livonia for single family residential.
I think that would be appropriate. That is my point of view.
Mr. Gottlieb: Let me ask you this. If you look at my elevations, all three
of them have brick in front. I see a lot of houses in Livonia
and all over. Here we have brick the full two stories so it
is not like we are trying to cut down on brick. What I am
saying is it is not like I am trying to cut down on brick, it
is just this is what I am saying the people like. Why can't I
make that an option for people? Why can't that be an option
to them?
Mr. McCann: I am not here to argue. That is just my personal opinion.
Because it is a cluster type of situation, the homes are going
to be closer together. I am not trying to give you a hard
time. I think the wear and tear, over the long term the City
would benefit with at least 50% brick. That is my point of
view.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Gottlieb, to be fair when you refer to having 100% brick
on the front of that building, the implication is it is the
full height of the whole front of the house, which is really
about 25% of the front of the house.
Mr. Gottlieb: If this is a major bone of contention with you, I would be
flexible. If this would really satisfy you people, I will go
along with it.
Mr. Engebretson: The public hearing isn't over yet. The public hasn't had
their chance yet but I think what you are hearing is that it
has a lot better chance with 50% brick. Don't forget this is
just the beginning. You will also appear before the City
Council and they have a tendency to ask for the same thing.
Mr. Morrow: Basically that is what I wanted to tell Mr. Gottlieb that this
is a recommending body so whether we disapprove it and you
appeal it and go before the City Council or we approve it and
you go to the City Council, one way or other you will be
13503
before the City Council. I am not on the City Council but I
have a very strong feeling that they will not approve this
without 50% brick. That is the only statement I want to make.
I have driven around this City for many, many years and, like
Mr. Tent, I would sure like to drive through one of those
recent subdivisions that have a two foot wall on three sides.
I think, and it is only a thought on my part, that the City
Council would probably be a little stronger than we are.
Mr. Engebretson: We just try to pave the way for them and make their job
easier.
Mr. TaPine: John, these lots, as I understand, will be 58'x110'. Minimum
size lots in Livonia are 60'x120'. Does he have to go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. TaPine: Why?
Mr. Nagy: Because this is going to be a site condominium. People are
buying not as a recorded lot in a subdivision. They will be
taking a land interest in a site that will be conveyed to them
through the condominium way of conveying property rather than
a recorded lot. They are not really platting this. It is not
going to be a subdivision plan per se recorded in the County
of Wayne and State of Michigan.
Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding he is going to give each individual
"14.. that buys one of these houses a deed to a piece of land and a
house. Doesn't that constitute a subdivision?
Mr. Nagy: He is giving them a limited property interest in a legally
described portion of that overall area. There will not be a
plat. We are not processing this under the plat ordinance or
is it coming to us through the Michigan Plat Ordinances. It
is a condominium plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this proposal?
Judy Plumley, 29509 Bobrich: I live in the Valleywood Condominiums. Valleywood
is 50% brick. That development has been there since the 70s.
I think this is part of the sustaining of the property values
that have been back since 1974 in the Valleywood development
and apparently decisions were made about brick at that time.
My mother is here in the audience and my mother is a long time
resident of Louise Street and that is the area I grew up in.
This property backs up not quite to my mother's land. My
parents have an acre and a quarter and they have one of the
older homes that Mr. Gottlieb mentioned he would like to see
maybe spruced up a little bit. However, my father has mowed
13504
that land. My father died last year but if you look out
beyond his acres you see this strip of old land that looks
like a golf course. They bought that land in 1939. They are
part of the staying power. I just want to say I don't feel
that wood is the quality of brick and I just want to say I
r.. think he has a nice design and I like a lot of things about it
but I am really glad to hear your input about the brick. I
just want to get on the record that I am a resident of
Valleywood and my mother is a resident of Louise and I would
like to see that street go through.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Gottlieb, before I close the public hearing I want to ask
you to give us an answer. I don't want you to feel any
pressure. If you do think there is pressure, we can table
this item so you would have some time to think about this. If
you want to stand with your proposal, you certainly are free
to do that. If you want to make a commitment to 50% brick, we
could put that as part of our resolution. You wouldn't have
to redraw your plans for our purposes but you probably would
want to redraw them for the City Council.
Mr. Morrow: Just a comment. We are seeing these plans for the first time.
We didn't have the opportunity to really discuss it with you
at our study session.
Mr. Engebretson: Had you presented them sooner, we would have had more time to
consider this point of view. You have the floor.
Mr. Gottlieb: It sounds like it might be a good idea to make the first floor
brick.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-5-2-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-114-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-5-2-14 by
Jerald Gottlieb requesting waiver use approval to construct single
family cluster homes to be located on the north side of Six Mile
Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 94-5-2-14 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 6-16-94, as revised, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated June 29, 1994 prepared
by J. Gottlieb Builder, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
`ir
13505
3) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy
condition.
4) That the south 75 feet of the site as well as the greenbelt
area along the Past property line shall be established as
common area and kept in common ownership by means of a
condominium association or other such method so as to insure
its continuous maintenance.
5) That in total of all four elevations there shall be at least a
50% coverage by full face brick material.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special
and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Section 20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
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. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-5-2-15 by Faig Sarhan requesting waiver use approval to utilize
SDD and SEI licenses in connection with a proposed party store to
be located in an existing building on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 4.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal.
We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal's office
and the Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no
objections to this proposal. Tartly, we have received a
letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating their
office has no objection to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
13506
Fair Sarhan: There used to be a drug store there that went out of business,
I believe in 1991, and I am trying to redo the vacant area and
put in an SDD and SDM license as a party store. It is an
existing shopping center that has three other vacancies and we
are just trying to put in a business and get the lease sign
out of there and liven up the center. It has easy access for
the customer getting in and out of the store. They don't have
to go to the big supermarkets in the area.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you own the property?
Mr. Sarhan: No I don't. I will be leasing it.
Mr. Engehretson: I was interested in the comment that you were concerned about
getting the For Lease signs out of the window.
Mr. Sarhan: We have been driving back and forth and we always see it
there. We inquired about it but we did not know there was a
liquor license there until just recently.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have other experience in that kind of business?
Mr. Sarhan: I currently have a business in the City of Dearborn Heights.
The same kind of license. I have been there since 1993 and I
have been in this business since 1980.
Mr. Engebretson: What kind of contact have you had with the Dearborn Heights
Police Department as far as violations?
Mr. Sarhan: I don't have any violations at all on my record since I have
been in this business.
Mr. Tent: Along with the liquor license are you going to be serving
sandwiches?
Mr. Sarhan: Exactly. It will be a little deli also with sandwiches and
lunch meat.
Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of operation:
Mr. Sarhan: It will be 9:30 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. , Monday through Thursday
and 9:30 a.m. until twelve midnight on Friday and Saturday.
We will be open 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, had this petitioner come forward with this proposal
say seven months ago, within the one year time that that
waiver use aunt the previous occupant of that building had
been abandoned, would he have automatically had the right to
utilize the SDD and SDM licenses there subject to his ability
to acquire one?
Mr. Nagy: That is true, particularly since it is my understanding it is
the same license that was previously issued at that location.
13507
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-5-2-15 closed.
r,,,.. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. rapine, it was
#6-115-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-5-2-15 by
Faig Sarhan requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM
licenses in connection with a proposed party store to be located in
an existing building on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 94-5-2-15 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Alanskas, Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-6-2-17 by Don Summers requesting waiver use approval to
construct single family cluster homes on property located on the
south side of Norfolk Avenue between Farmington and Shadyside Roads
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating their office has no objections to this waiver use
proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic
Bureau stating that department has no objections to the site
13508
plan as submitted. Also in our file is a petition with 18
signatures stating they have reviewed the site plan and
architectural renderings for the proposed Pinebrooke
Condominiums and find no objection to the proposal as
presented on this date. The plans as shown, would enhance the
neighborhood and we support the approval of this complex.
Mr. Engehretson: Is the petitioner present?
Steven Summers, 20025 Shadyside: Basically what we are trying to do here is
enhance the neighborhood. In the past year we put up three
brand new single family homes on Norfolk at Shadyside and we
would like to continue that look, which is contemporary new
home construction. We feel it would enhance the neighborhood
greatly.
Mr. Engebretson: The difference being that these homes would be more dense than
the other homes.
Mr. Summers: Correct. These would be cluster homes.
Mr. Miller presented the site plans.
Mr. Miller: As you can see they will have two-car garages so with their
driveways they will have parking for four cars at each unit.
Mr. Summers: They will have three bedrooms with two bedrooms in the ranch
models.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that a private road?
Mr. Miller: It is a private road because it doesn't meet the requirements
of the width.
Mr. Engebretson: The Fire Marshal does not find any problem?
Mr. Nagy: It is such a limited depth.
Mr. Tent: Will all the existing trecz be preserved?
Mr. Miller: That is what the site plan says.
Mr. Summers: Correct. We will save everything we can save around the
setbacks.
Mr. Summers presented the elevation plans.
Mr. Tent: The side elevations will all be brick?
Mr. Summers: Correct to gable height.
Mr. Tent: Will there be sidewalks?
13509
Mr. Summers: Sidewalks will be provided for each individual condominium.
We will provides walks where they are needed.
Mr. Tent: What would these units sell for?
Mr. Summers: We plan on starting these out around $130,000.
Mr. Tent: Is that similar to Whispering Winds?
Mr. Summers: Yes it is. It is very similar. The elevations are very
similar.
Mr. Morrow: Will there be basements?
Mr. Summers: Full basements for each unit.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anything you want to add sir?
Mr. Summers: We just feel it will enhance the area greatly. What is there
now is an older home with a structure behind the older home
and it is falling apart and this will be a great addition to
the neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you own the property now?
Mr. Summers: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this proposal?
Mable Rhone, 20080 Shadyside: I don't know if I am for or against the proposal
but I am here to ask a few questions. I would like to know
how many units he is going to have.
Mr. Engebretson: There are three buildings, two of them have two units and one
has three units for a total of seven.
Ms. Rhone: Then my concerns would be with our infrastructure over there
being the original, is the sewer system going to be adequate
to accommodate the new buildings with as much as has been
going on recently and also the water pressure system. Is the
Planning Commission aware of the fact that I don't think there
has been any improvement in the infrastructure over there
through the years.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy handled that question last time. I am going to ask
him to please do that again.
Mr. Nagy: We had our Engineering Department review this petition showing
the seven units and they came back with their report
indicating there were no engineering problems, no water
problems, etc. in connection with this proposal, therefore
they had no objection to it.
13510
Ms. Rhone: In the past I know there have some homes with water in the
basements and I was just wondering if the new addition would
cause any problems in the area.
Mr. Engebretson: It should not based upon our report from Engineering.
Ms. Rhone: Okay, that was my main concern.
Helen Romaine, 20205 Shadyside: I feel the same as Mrs. Rhone.
Mr. Engebretson: Then I guess our answer is the same.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-2-17 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-116-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-6-2-17 by
Don Summers requesting waiver use approval to construct single
family cluster homes on property located on the south side of
Norfolk Avenue between Farmington and Shadyside Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-6-2-17 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 6-11-94, as revised, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Landscape Plan dated 6-12-94 is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to and the landscape materials shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy
condition.
3) That the Building Elevation Plans dated June 21, 1994 prepared
by Progressive Associates, Inc. which are hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
4) That all existing trees located outside of the construction
areas having a caliper of at lust 3 inches shall be clearly
designated for non-removal and shall be protected during the
construction process by the use of snow fencing or other such
means.
5) That there shall be brick up to gable height on all four
elevations of each unit.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
13511
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section
20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
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. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-4-3-5 by Augusto E. Tartaglia requesting to vacate a portion of
Haldane Avenue located east of Fitzgerald Avenue, north of Seven
Mile Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Augusto Tartaglia, 19336 Fitzgerald: The reason why I am asking for that is we
have been here for 20 years. I have 70 feet and 10 feet.
Mr. Engebretson: You understand if this vacating is successful that half the
property would be allocated to and attached to your property
and half would be attached to the property to the north?
Mr. Tartaglia: My neighbor. He is here right now.
Mr. Engebretson: I just wanted to make sure you understand the process. Is
there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal?
Ray Paquin, 19378 Fitzgerald: I live on Lot 54 and I own Lot 53. I would like
one half of this.
Mr. Nagy: I would like to add that in our letter from the Engineering
Department stating since there are overhead electrical
facilities crossing the subject street right-of-way, it is
recommended that a full width easement for public utilities be
retained over the street right-of-way to be vacated. They
stated further the petitioner should be advised that in the
opinion of their office 1/2 of the above street right-of-way
would be attached to Lot 52 with the remaining portion of the
right-of-way reverting to Lot 53. They end by saying they
have no objections to this proposal. So while they have no
objections to the vacating they do indicate that there are
overhead electrical facilities in the subject street
13512
right-of-way and therefore they are recommending a full width
easement be retained over the street right-of-way. I thought
it would be important information for the petitioner and the
abutting property owners to realize that while the City will
vacate its interests in terms of road right-of-way purposes,
`.. they are going to retain an easement to protect the public
utility.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you for bringing that out Mr. Nagy. Do you understand
that sir?
Mr. Nagy: The only thing you won't be able to do is build a permanent
structure such as a garage or an out building. You can
certainly use it for garden purposes or landscape purposes or
things of that nature.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-3-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-117-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-4-3-5 by
Augusto E. Tartaglia requesting to vacate a portion of Haldane
Avenue located east of Fitzgerald Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road,
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-3-5 be
approved subject to the retention of a full width easement to
protect public utilities for the following reasons:
1) That the subject road right-of-way is no longer needed to
provide for public access.
2) That the subject area can be more properly utilized in private
ownership.
3) That the subject area should be placed on the tax rolls of the
City of Livonia.
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. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-4-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or
not to amend Zoning Ordinance #543 to delete churches as permitted
uses in C-2 districts.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you have any comments to make since we are the
petitioner here? This came about as a result of the Zoning
Board of Appeals asking for this public hearing as I recall.
13513
Mr. Nagy: That is true. There was a letter addressed to you as Chairman
of the City Planning Commission indicating that the
circumstance in which they, as the Zoning Board, had
previously been asked to consider whether or not churches
should be located within shopping centers, particularly the
one they had was because of the two acre requirement that
couldn't be complied with. They felt, upon their examination,
maybe C-2 shopping centers are not appropriate locations for
churches and asked the Planning Commission, as the planning
body of the City, to review that matter and the purpose for
this hearing is to hear public comment as to whether or not
the Zoning Ordinance should be amended so as to remove this
permission through the waiver use proceedings of having
churches located in commercial districts such as shopping
centers.
Mr. Engebretson: If this were to be successful, the result would be that
churches would continue to be appropriate in residential
areas and even be preferred uses under certain circumstances.
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner here, we will ask if there is
anyone in the audience 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 94-4-6-3 closed.
`... On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-118-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-4-6-3 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Zoning Ordinance #543 to delete churches as permitted uses in C-2
districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 94-4-6-3 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will delete a use which
is normally not permitted in commercial zoning districts.
2) That the proposed language amendment will confine the location
of churches to residential districts wherein they are
considered as a preferred use.
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.
Mt. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13514
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-4-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or
not to amend Section 18.38 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to establish
parking requirements for transmission repair shops and other types
`oma of auto repair facilities.
Mr. EngPhretson: Again John, we are the petitioner here. It is my recollection
this came about as a recommendation from the Mayor's Roads
Beautification Committee recognizing the potential problem with the
current Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to parking requirements,
and the purpose for this petition is to get that up to date. Would
you say that was a fair characterization?
Mr. Nagy: I think you gave the full background.
Mr. Engehretson: Again, since the City is the petitioner here we will go the
audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for or against this
proposed change.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engehretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-6-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-119-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-4-6-4 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.38 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to establish parking
requirements for transmission repair shops and other types of auto
repair facilities, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-6-4 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for more
adequate off-street parking facilities for auto repair
facilities.
2) That the proposed language amendment is needed so as to insure
preservation of the public health, safety and welfare.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given
in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer accolades to the Roads
Beautification Committee for bringing this forward. It is
something we probably should have done years ago but somebody
had to bring it forward and congratulations to that committee.
Mr. EngPhretson: Mr. Shane and I met this afternoon with the Mayor and
conducted business and I don't think I will remember to do
that next time but hopefully Mr. Shane will remember to pass
that on.
t�
13515
Mr. Ehgebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
\.. 94-4-6-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #47-94, to determine whether or not to amend Section
4.02 of Zoning ordinance #543 with regard to the placement of
pole-mounted basketball backboards and hoops in R-1 through R-5
districts.
Mr. Ehgebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you please enlighten us as to the Council's
purpose in sending this to the Planning Commission for this
public hearing.
Mr. Nagy: The City Council, based upon some complaints by residents with
respect to the matter of basketball backboards, decided the
ordinance should be looked at to see if we should regulate the
placement and number of such basketball backboards. The
proposed amendment would indicate that there shall be no more
than one such backboard or hoop, either garage or pole
mounted, located in all combined front yards or side yard
setbacks of a lot. A pole-mounted backboard and hoop shall be
located within the one-third of the front yard setback nearest
the dwelling and contiguous to the driveway or within the
one-third side yard setback nearest the dwelling. This
proposed amendment would indicate that we are not restricting
basketball backboards or hoops but we are allowing no more
than one to be located in your front yard, but take the length
of your front yard and it shall be located one third of the
distance closest to the house and adjacent and contiguous to
the drive, or in the event you want it in your side yard,
again you take your side yard and divide it into thirds and it
shall be in that one third nearest the dwelling. Again, no
more than one such backboard. It is a regulation to try to
place the backboard a little further away from property lines
to keep balls from going onto adjacent properties or roadways
to cause a hazard or a nuisance.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you know if this came about because of multiple disputes
that had to do with this issue or was there a single
complaint?
Mr. Nagy: I really don't have the full background. I suspect it was
more than just a single complaint but I can't give you a
number.
Mr. Engebretson: This was, of course, also advertised in the Livonia Observer
that this public hearing was going to occur and it has been
posted here in City Hall. We will go to the public for their
input. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for
or against this proposed ordinance change.
13516
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-6-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-120-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-4-6-5 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#47-94, to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.02 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 with regard to the placement of pole-mounted
basketball backboards and hoops in R-1 through R-5 districts, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 94-4-6-5 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will impose unneeded
additional regulations on private property owners.
2) That the proposed language amendment bares no relationship to
the implementation of City development goals and policies as
reflected by the Master Plan of the City of Livonia.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given
in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: I can certainly appreciate where perhaps some of our residents
have concerns about it but I don't think this ordinance would
allay those concerns. I think it probably falls in the same
category as whether or not people are playing hockey in the
`.. street or have swimming pools. It kind of falls in the
nuisance category and if there are people abusing it at late
hours, etc. there must be other avenues of the City to address
those concerns. To single out basketball hoops to me is not
appropriate as indicated in the resolution.
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. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 685th Regular Meeting held on June 7, 1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-121-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 685th Regular Meeting of the City
Planning Commission held on June 7, 1994 are hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
f""
13517
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-4-8-11 by Art Van Furniture requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
' r with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the commercial
building located at 29905 Seven Mile Road in Section 11.
Mr. Miller: This is the Art Van Furniture Store which is located on the
south side of Seven Mile Road across from the Livonia Mall.
They are proposing to put on a 7200 square foot addition to
the rear of the store. The floor plan shows that this
addition will be used for warehouse use only. The site plan
shows parking, which they mcct. Landscaping is 13% when they
are required to have 15%. The elevation plan shows the
material used to construct this addition will be the same
materials as the existing building. It also shows that the
east elevation will have six overhead doors and the pavement
in front of it will be down sloped and this will be used as a
truck well.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, do they have a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals?
Mr. Miller: Because this building has improper setbacks, rear and side, it
is a non-conforming building, so before they came before you
they had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board, which
they were, so by virtue of that they were allowed to go
forward as if they were a conforming building.
Mr. EngPhretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Randy Bettinger: I am the store manager of the Seven Mile Art Van Store, 29905
Seven Mile Road. What we are looking to do is bring back our
delivery system back to the City of Livonia instead of
delivering out of Fourteen Mile and Van Dyke, which is in
Warren. It will better service the people in this area and
ease of operation and less burden on the store and the people
as far as the flow of traffic.
Mr. Morrow: Will the delivery trucks be downsized?
Mr. Bettinger: The same size.
Mr. Morrow: So there is no impact in that area?
Mr. Bettinger: There would be one impact. The freight trucks that would come
into our store right now, would no longer be coming in so
there would be less traffic.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
13518
#6-122-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 94-4-8-11 by Art Van Furniture
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a
`. warehouse addition to the commercial building located at 29905
Seven Mile Road in Section 11 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet SPA-i dated 4/15/94 by
Art Van Furniture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet SPA-3 dated 4/15/94
by Art Van Furniture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
3) That a sidewalk be placed along Melvin Avenue consistent with
the adjacent sidewalk currently being constructed in
connection with a condominium project.
Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Randy, would you enlighten us as to the logic behind the
decision to abandon your plans to change the sign on the front
to say Art Van Furniture and Clearance Center or whatever the
proposal was a year or so ago?
Mr. Bettinger: The plan two years ago was to put a Clearance Center sign out
to tell people we had a Clearance Center there. The Planning
`,, Commission and the rest of the boards said it wouldn't be in
our best interest to put it up because the signage footage
isn't allowed for that size building. The idea was abandoned
and I haven't brought it up again and don't plan to in the
near future. We are drawing the traffic. We could use the
sign, there is no question.
Mr. Engebretson: Well I have been in your store on a number of occasions and it
is my impression that you have proceeded with your marketing
plan but that the only thing that was changed was the sign
plan. You are operating a clearance center?
Mr. Bettinger: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Successfully?
Mr. Bettinger: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: The sign change is not deemed to be necessarily needed?
Mr. Bettinger: Yes.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Beacon Sign Company requesting approval for one wall
sign for the building located at 28007 Eight Mile Road in Section
1.
13519
Mr. Miller: This is the shopping center that is located on the south side
of Eight Mile Road just west of Grand River. It is the Arbor
Drug Store. They have an existing wall sign on the front of
their store, which they were granted. It is 72 square feet.
They are requesting another sign exactly the same as the
existing one so it will be 72 square feet. They are allowed
one sign at 74 square feet so they are in excess of one sign
at 70 square feet. To get this before you they had to go to
the Zoning Board of Appeals first, which they did and they
were granted a variance for two wall signs, so by virtue of
the variance they have a conforming sign package.
Mr. Engebretson: We basically covered this at our study meeting and because it
is now a conforming sign, we told the petitioner he didn't
need to come in tonight. With that in mind, I would look for
a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#6-123-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Beacon Sign
Company requesting approval for one wall sign for the building
located at 28007 Eight Mile Road in Section 1 be approved subject
to the following condition:
1) That the Sign Package by Beacon Sign Company, received by the
Planning Commission on June 1, 1994, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
as well as subject to the following additional conditions required
by the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) The sign is to be identical to the existing sign on the north
elevation, including colors, and shall not exceed 72 sq. ft.
in area. The sign is to be erected on the east wall as
proposed.
2) This sign is for this petitioner and this business only. In
the event Arbor Drugs should vacate this location, the signage
is to be removed immediately.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit
Application by Larry A. Pacific for the installation of a satellite
dish antenna for property located at 14027 Alexander Street in
Section 24.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is asking for a 10 foot diameter satellite dish
to be located approximately 20 feet from the north lot line
and 24 feet f um his rear lot line. To the rear he has the
(...
13520
Buckingham Office Complex which is located in the OS area.
The satellite dish will be 10 feet in diameter on a 6 foot
high pole, which would be approximately 12 feet for the whole
apparatus. On the site plan he shows, because it has the
`.�. Buckingham Office complex behind him, there is an existing six
foot high concrete wall along his rear property line. To the
south is an existing six foot high wood fence, and then at the
north lot line he would screen it from his neighbors by the
existing landscaping. He has submitted consent letters from
his adjoining neighbors on the north side and also tonight he
submitted one from two lots over on the north.
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here.
Larry Pacific, 14027 Alexander: At the study meeting they wanted a color. I
have a sample if you want to see it. It is a mesh dish. It
looks like charcoal gray but they call it smoke blue.
Mr. Engebretson: I appreciate you bringing in that third consent letter. As we
told you last week, our principal concern in dealing with
issues like this is the aesthetic impact that they have on the
neighboring property owners and we discussed whether or not
this dish would be visible beyond your immediate abutting
neighbors and you thought it would be two down. Is the
landscaping going to prevent that?
Mr. Pacific: The house to the south has an above-ground swimming pool so we
have a six foot fence on our side. They also have a six foot
fence on the other side of their property. Also the way the
`r.. road is turning, the second house to the south is basically
off at a distance. Their backyard isn't lined up with ours.
Also, I might mention there is no way you could see this dish
f um the front of the house.
Mr. Engebretson: We appreciate your cooperation in dealing with this matter.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-124-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Permit Application by Larry A. Pacific for the installation of a
satellite dish antenna for property located at 14027 Alexander
Street in Section 24, subject to the following condition:
1) That the Site and Specification Plan by Larry A. Pacific, received
by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1994, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will
not have any detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring
properties.
13521
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 686th Regular
4m. Meeting & Public Hearings held on June 21, 1994 was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION
///
/,'J.., C. McCann, Secretary
/
ATTEST:
Jack Engebretson, Chairman
jg
r..