HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-07-26 13522
MINUTES OF THE 687th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 26, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 687th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the mooting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 65 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann Robert Alanskas
Daniel Piercecchi Patricia Blomberg
Members absent: R. Lee Morrow William LaPine
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 introduced the new members of the Planning Commission, Daniel
Piercecchi and Patricia Blomberg, and acknowledged the contributions made by
departing Planning Commissioners Ray Tent and Brenda Lee Fandrei, whose terms
expired recently.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Amended
Petition 94-4-1-10 by Robert Jacobs of Buddy's Pizza requesting to
rezone property located south of Plymouth Road between Farmington
and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from R-9 to P.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have been informed by the Engineering Department that they
have no objections to this proposal. We have also received a
letter from David G. Miles, Managing Partner of Plymouth Farms
Associates, stating that he approves of the requested
rezoning.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and make whatever
comments you care to make.
13523
Robert Jacobs, 31800 Northwestern Hwy. , Suite 206, Farmington Hills: The
property that we are attempting to buy is owned presently by
Dr. Alan Mendelssohn who owns the senior citizens housing over
there and we hope, quite frankly, that you rezone it for
�.. parking for the use of the restaurant.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Jacobs, I would like to ask one question. You originally
were approved for 150 seats and you now have 214 seats. How
did you get 64 more seats?
Mr. Jacobs: I am not aware that we have 64 more seats. One of the things
we are going to do is to redo the bathrooms. They are at code
but they are not up to standards for the use of our customers.
Mr. Alanskas: You are saying you don't know you have 214 seats?
Mr. Jacobs: I didn't know that I had 214 seats.
Mr. Alanskas: I can see you do need more parking. Tonight is a zoning
issue, going from an R-9 to a P, which I think is very
important to your business but I would just like to know how
your restaurant went from so many seats, and now you are not
in compliance with your original petition. If you are not
aware of it, I think we should make someone aware that you are
over what you are supposed to have and go accordingly. I
would suggest that you do count how many you do have. I would
like to check myself and make sure it is over by that amount,
but from 150 to 214, that is a big jump and I would think with
your people working there you would know that you have more
`�.. seats than you are supposed to have.
Mr. Jacobs: I will get together and discuss that with them.
Mr. Alanskas: It is not tonight's issue but I just wondered how you did that
and I am surprised that you don't know you have that many
seats in your establishment.
Mr. McCann: With this particular purchase, you signed a purchase agreement
conditional upon zoning?
Mr. Jacobs: No it is an option.
Mr. McCann: So you don't necessarily have to take this if we approve the
change in the zoning.
Mr. Jacobs: Well I am going to take it.
Mr. McCann: At this point it is an option to purchase.
Mr. Jacobs: I can't use it if I don't get the zoning.
Mr. McCann: You did sign a purchase agreement pending zoning?
13524
Mr. Jacobs: Yes, essentially.
Mr. McCann: Haw often do you think this will be used? Just during dinner
hour, during lunch hour, any other time of the day?
`r.
Mr. Jacobs: Dinner hour.
Mr. McCann: Do you think that back part will be used after nine o'clock at
night?
Mr. Jacobs: I think it would be mainly used between 5:30 p.m. and 9:00
p.m. After 9:00 p.m. perhaps a little on the weekends. Very
little after 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Jacobs, the concern expressed by Mr. Alanskas, we don't
want to dwell on that but we trust that you are at your
capacity that you intend to operate at with your current
seating arrangement. Can we get that on the public record?
Mr. Jacobs: Sure.
Mr. Engebretson: The point of concern is in order to come into compliance, that
the combination of this rezoning and the leased spaces that
you have from your neighbor, puts you in compliance. Our
concern would be if you were to lose those leased spaces,
suddenly you are not in compliance again and would be subject
to a violation notice. Is it your intent to continue on with
that lease for the 17 spaces?
�. Mr. Jacobs: Yes for the time being subject to the lease.
Mr. Engebretson: I just want to make you aware, on the record, that should
that lease end, that you are going to be in violation of the
ordinance and the only way you will have to avoid that
deficiency would be to reduce the seating in your restaurant.
Mr. Jacobs: If I am able to buy this property because of the parking, I
could also have more parking from this I understand.
Mr. Engebretson: Yes sir. The combination of those two situations would, in
fact, put you at excess parking, but if you were to lose
either one, you would be deficient. We don't want to dwell on
it but we want to make sure you understand the ground rules.
Again, the idea is not to be difficult but to make it possible
for you to understand the terms and conditions because you
seem to be unaware that you are in violation.
Mr. Jacobs: I want to make sure I have enough parking.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this proposed zoning change?
13525
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-1-10 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-125-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
July 26, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Amended Petition
94-4-1-10 by Robert Jacobs of Buddy's Pizza requesting to rezone
property located south of Plymouth Road between Farmington and
Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from R-9 to P, the
City Planning Commission dnes hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 94-4-1-10 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 only a minor
expansion of non-residential zoning in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will permit the use of the
subject site for additional off-street parking to serve the
area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: One point I would like to clarify if I can through the Chair
*a..• to Mr. Nagy, it is my understanding that even though he is
going to have additional parking, the site plan is still only
approved for 150 seats, and that by having 214 seats he will
still be in violation. We are not approving to change the
original site plan to allow for more seats are we?
Mr. Nagy: That is true. The issue tonight is only a zoning change to
parking, and to keep everything on the record he should come
back and ask for an amendment to increase the seating because
he is in violation.
Mr. McCann: That is what I understood. Thank you.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you understand that Mr. Jacobs?
Mr. Jacobs: Okay.
Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-6-1-12 by Ronald Parz requesting to rezone property located on
the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Jarvis Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RC to R-1.
13526
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating there are no City maintained storm sewers readily
available to service the subject site. It appears that the
site may have to be outletted southerly through the Hines Park
area to Newburgh Lake. In addition, appropriate pavement
widenings of Plymouth Road may be required by the Wayne County
Department of Public Services. In this connection, further
right-of-way dedication will be required along the Plymouth
Road frontage (60 feet) in accordance with the City's and
County's Master Thoroughfare Plans. They finished by saying
there appear to be no other engineering problems connected
with the proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Charles Tangora: I represent Mr. Parz who is visiting relatives in Europe this
week so he is not here. I think you all probably remember
this piece of property. Over the last three to four years we
have been before you several times on a multiple type
development. This is the first time that the owner has
decided that because of the configuration of the piece of
property and some of the problems that have been involved in
the past, to now rezone it to an R-1 similar to the Hunters
Pointe Subdivision to the north, which is selling very well,
and to develop it into R-1 single family type of residential.
He anticipates that he will be able to get 28 to 29 home sites
4t.. on the piece of property.
Mr. Alanskas: Are they going to be ranches or mixed housing?
Mr. Tangora: Mixed.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you know the prices of these homes approximately?
Mr. Tangora: Very similar to Hunters Pointe across Plymouth Road. I think
they are in the area of $150,000 to $180,000.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing
to speak for or against this proposal.
Carol Pankow, 11716 Jarvis: I live on the street that backs up to the field in
question. We have a petition here from the neighborhood. The
neighbors have gotten together and wrote this petition. "As
home owners of the Chaney Bakewell Plymouth Park Subdivision,
we are very satisfied with the new petition to rezone property
located on the south side of Plymouth Road, Past of Jarvis
from RC (Residential Condominium) to R-1 (One Family
Residential) . Our request as homeowners on Jarvis Avenue, is
to keep uniformity and consistency to all lots that border
13527
property in question (Lots 12 thru 25) . We propose not to
include the Southeast 1/4 section of Section 30 in the
development of R-1 homes in Petition 94-6-1-12. We feel it is
essential to maintain the natural beauty and flow of the
�.. existing treeline and the maturity of the landscape within our
well established neighborhood." Do you understand the section
we are talking about?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes we do. We have been through this several times. We
appreciate your comments and we would like to have your
petition as part of the public record. I would like to
respond to your point by saying that for the purpose of
tonight's meeting we are required to confine the issues to the
zoning matter. Following this process, if it were to be
successful to make this zoning change, then there will be a
platting process which would involve another public hearing
and you would be notified and we would certainly welcome your
input at that time.
Ms. Pankow: Is that section already zoned R-C?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes it is.
Ms. Pankow: We have kind of gotten lost here.
Mr. Engebretson: I think you have company. You are not alone. We appreciate
the time you took to come down here tonight and we would
encourage you to come back if this zoning petition is
successful, to come back during the platting process to have
`.. your input at that time.
George Cashmore, 11668 Jarvis: I am Carol Pankow's neighbor. I would like to
say we are all in agreement that we do agree with it being
rezoned to single family residential but my concern, again, is
that one little strip of land that borders on my property. I
don't want to see that end up as a retention pond.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora will take note of your comments sir and I think we
have discussed that issue on other occasions. It certainly
shouldn't be ignored. We appreciate your coming down and
making your comments and we will get into those matters during
the platting process, but it is a part of the public record.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-1-12 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and
unanimously approved, it was
#7-126-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on July 26, 1994 on Petition 94-6-1-12 by
Ronald Parz requesting to rezone property located on the south side
13528
of Plymouth Road, east of Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 30 from RC to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-6-1-12 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan.
3) That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical expansion
of an existing zoning district in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-6-1-13 by Jerry Brady requesting to rezone property located on
the south side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers Avenue and
Brentwood Avenue in the North 1/2 of Section 12 from O.S. , C-1 and
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 rezoning be approved, it appears that the
vacation of the public alley north of Lot 59 should be
considered. They end by saying their office has no objection
to the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us your
reason for making this request.
Jerry Brady, 17150 Inkster, Redford: I have those two pieces under option to
purchase and will end up with 18 lots. It wasn't feasible
before until they tore down that building on the C-1 piece,
and I think the OS was just recently rezoned but they are
willing to have it go back to R-1. It will eventually have to
be platted.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak
for or against this proposal.
Kenneth Klein, 18956 Brentwood: My back property juts back to the rezoning
area. What are the intentions in this petition? All I know
is they want to change the OS to R-l.
13529
Mr. Engebretgson: Single family homes.
Mr. Klein: Is the intent to open Harrison all the way down to Clarita and
Pickford?
Mr. Engebretson: We don't know that but we would imagine that is a highly
likely situation, but as you may have heard earlier tonight
the issue in this particular case is zoning. If it is
successful, then there will come later on the platting
process.
Mr. Klein: At this point as far as residential for or against isn't on
the table. Is that correct?
Mr. Engebretson: Well sure. You are certainly welcome to make your comments.
Mr. Klein: I am speaking for my neighbor that lives to the south of me.
She wasn't able to come here tonight. I bought the property
there in 1975 and it was a natural area to this point. Now
with the easement behind the house I have no idea what we are
going to be looking at. Right now it is a natural area with
animals and everything else. I hate to see it being changed.
That is why I moved to Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you talking about your property or someone else's
property?
Mr. Klein: If this changes, Harrison is going to be opened up and I will
have houses to the rear of me. Dr. Singer, when he rezoned up
r.. there and the air conditioning place was torn down, had it
petitioned to business. We fought this before because they
wanted to put a strip mall up there and back four to five
years ago Dr. Singer agreed to make it a doctor office only
type building. That was the agreement back then. Now I see
it is slowly slipping back to a point where Harrison is going
to be opened up and that means the cross streets east and west
will be opened up and traffic will be just like Detroit.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir I don't want to take exception but Harrison is a defined
paper street at the moment, as there are similar situations
throughout the City, and from time to time as development
occurs and people use their land, streets do open up and I
would speculate Harrison would open up to Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Klein: I understood this was all RUF at one time.
Mr. Engebretson: We have a mixture in the area now. Your concern is duly
noted. It is a part of the public record. You are certainly
welcome to participate in the details of the platting process
if this is successful.
Richard Spens: I am here representing my mother who is older and doesn't want
13530
to speak in front of a group of people. She resides at 28515
West Seven Mile Road at the corner of Brentwood Avenue. She
sees a lot of vacant land where people ride motorcycles around
occasionally and kids start fires in trccs and shenanigans go
°`.. on from time to time and there have been proposals for malls
and commercial property, and this, from my understanding, puts
it all to homes. If it goes to homes, they will be nice new
homes versus a place where people are causing trouble all the
time so she is for this zoning change for those reasons as she
continues to reside there and intends to for the rest of her
life.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you for your comments.
Tom Goebel, 17410 Inkster, Redford Township: I have been working with the
owners of these properties for years. A correction to your
map. Harrison Road at this point is 60 feet wide and I think
the map shows it narrower than that and I have brought with me
a letter dated June 9, 1993 from Harry Tatigian where the City
was accepting the deed to that.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Mr. Goebel: I support the petition.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-1-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Pat Blomberg and unanimously
`�r.. approved, it was
#7-127-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
July 26, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-6-1-13
by Jerry Brady requesting to rezone property located on the south
side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers Avenue and Brentwood Avenue
in the North 1/2 of Section 12 from O.S. , C-1 and RUF to R-1, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 94-6-1-13 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
redevelopment and utilization of several existing undersize
residential lots in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will remove unused
non-residential zoning in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning in the area.
4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development
of a portion of Harrison Road so as to maximize the development
potential of vacant land in the area.
13531
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.
`o• 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
94-6-3-6 by Jerry R. Brady requesting to vacate a portion of a 20
foot wide public alley located south of Seven Mile Road between
Harrison Avenue and Lathers Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
12.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating their records indicate that there are no City
maintained utilities within the alley in question except a
sanitary sewer manhole at the end of a sewer system at the
rear of the lots facing Harrison Avenue. Therefore a six foot
wide easement is being retained for purposes of maintaining this
structure. They end by saying their office has no objections
to the vacating of the above alley subject to the easement
area noted. Also in our file is a letter from Consumers Power
stating they have no facilities in the area of this proposed
vacation therefore have no objections to this petition.
Mr. Engebretson: This petition is related to the previous petition. Is there
r.. anything for the petitioner to add here?
Mr. Brady: I just need the area to make it uniform.
Mr. Engebretson: A point of procedure here. Let's say this were approved and
the zoning failed at the Council level, presumably we could
depend on them to vote this down as well?
Mr. Nagy: I don't think the alley, whether it stays commercial or goes
to R-1 residential, serves any practical purpose. It is just
not needed.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engehretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-3-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and
unanimously approved, it was
#7-128-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
July 26, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-6-3-6
by Jerry R. Brady requesting to vacate a portion of a 20 foot wide
public alley located south of Seven Mile Road between Harrison
Avenue and Lathers Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, the
13532
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 94-6-3-6 be approved subject to the retention of a
six (6) foot wide public easement for public utilities over the
east six (6) feet of the subject alley for the following reasons:
Nair.
1) That the subject alley is no longer needed for public access
purposes.
2) That the subject alley can be more properly utilized by the
abutting property owner for private purposes.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-6-1-14 by J.K.L. Associates, Inc. requesting to rezone property
located on the north side of Lyndon Avenue between Bainbridge
Avenue and Bredin Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from RUF
to R-5.
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 sanitary and storm sewer extensions would be required
;,ory in connection with the four potential lots being created by
the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Lou Ronayne, 28947 Glenbrook, Farmington Hills: Basically, I have owned the
property for a year now and we had a lot split approved last
year and we have been going back and forth with the City
Engineering Department on where we are going to connect with
the sewer. There is some concern on the main storm sewer
going dawn the middle of Lyndon Road so we revised a little
bit and decided to bring our sewer down to Bainbridge and
in doing so extending it longer than we thought. I thought
given the area, the houses across the street and the
likelihood of these lots are smaller than the ones on Bredin
Court, we would opt to try to get a fourth lot out of the
property.
Mr. Engebretson: On that point Mr. Nagy, would a fourth lot on this property be
possible in the R-5 zoning district based on the size
requirements?
Mr. Nagy: The fourth lot would be deficient in terms of lot width. It
would not be permitted without obtaining a variance from the
L
13533
Zoning Board of Appeals, but no it would not fully comply.
Mr. Ronayne: The fourth lot has the area but it doesn't have the actual
frontage. It is a little too short.
Mr. Engebretson: I appreciate you making the comment, and as you heard earlier
and as you well know, the only issue involved here this
evening is the zoning, but it is our understanding the three
lots as they are is the only workable solution within the
zoning district without seeking the relief that Mr. Nagy
referred to. We are only going to deal with the matter of the
zoning here this evening, not the matter of three or four
lots. That is as much for the benefit of the audience as it
is for you.
Mr. Ronayne: I realize I will be required to come back and plat it because
I have already received the three splits.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for
or against this proposal.
Patricia Gawlik, 30920 Lyndon: Currently that is the only home located on
Lyndon in this block. Our lot is just under 3/4 of an acre so
I would like to speak against the rezoning to make these any
smaller because they are already smaller than our lot.
Terrance Miller, 14641 Bredin Court: I am returning again from one time before
when we basically addressed this same situation in regards to
the property just east of the Kroger area adjoining with Spanich
r.. Court. This is an ongoing thing that we are trying to resolve
and continue fighting against the rezoning in our immediate
area which would break up the consistencies of homes and
property sizes. Our main concern is just to continue RUF. We
have no objection to development. We have no objections to
modernization. It is just basically our RUF standard is very
high set for the citizens and the residing areas around there.
Basically we are just speaking out for our consistency with
the RUF in the area rather than changing one little area that
is right in the RUF section.
Mr. Engebretson: Before we move forward I would like to ask Mr. Nagy to comment
on the current state of the situation there and the current
zoning district, RUF. What are their objectives there? I
understand that some lot splits have occurred. Do they have
the right now to build three homes there?
Mr. Nagy: City Council did grant the three lot splits and the lots are
slightly less than meeting the requirements of the RUF zoning
classification. In all probability a building permit would be
granted for each of these lots.
Mr. Engebretson: That is the point I wanted brought out. At the moment there
is a right for this land owner to develop the three homes
13534
there because they so closely comply. The question being
whether or not there would be a fourth, and in order to do
that they would need the rezoning that is being proposed plus
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
`,..
Kevin Molley, 30890 Lyndon: That is the northeast corner of Lyndon and Bredin.
I moved there in 1984 to a large rural area. I was actually
unaware last year of the split that occurred there. What I
see is my property values going down as you see on Bainbridge
those lots all being made much smaller. I am somewhat
disappointed in that. We are here to have a family and to
have large lots and a lot of space for the kids to play. I
guess that is all I wanted to say.
Edith Ruscillo, 30911 Lyndon: The reason why we are against the rezoning is the
additional noise and traffic would devalue our properties and
the peaceful and quiet life as we have known it will be over
forever and we will no longer get our tax monies worth.
Catherine Trainor, 31125 Lyndon: I am one of those houses across the street
from the proposed rezoning area. I am opposed to it. I don't
even want three houses to go over there but I know we can't
tell somebody they can't use their property. I think four
would be totally inconsistent with the rest of that stretch of
Lyndon that goes down to Henry Ruff, which are all fairly
large lots and fairly large homes. I think if you threw in
four houses there, it would be totally inconsistent and like
it was chopped up for somebody to add a fourth house. I am
opposed.
Now
Glenn Jackson, 30561 Hoy: I am opposed to the rezoning plan. I am not opposed
to the development of those three areas. We have in our
neighborhood signed petitions. We have 36 names tonight and
there are four other petitions that are out that we don't
have. We feel we have a total of 106 names that are opposed
to the lot split as four lots. We would like to see it stay
as three lots.
Mr. Engebretson: If you have the petitions with you tonight it would be a good
idea to turn it in for our records.
Mr. Jackson: We have the 36 names but we can get the rest of the names
tomorrow.
Mr. Engebretson: That would be fine.
Art Oswalt, 30544 Hoy: Again, we are not against the three homes. We are
against the new rezoning to four homes. We feel the three
lots are adequate right now and maintain the RUF look that is
necessary down there to keep it in the same patterns of the
neighborhood that have been reflected all over. Again, we are
against any rezoning to four homes instead of three.
13535
Cliff Hettel, 30861 Nye Court: I oppose the rezoning to the four lots. We have
heard that this petitioner has approached the people on
Bainbridge where the opening of this to four lots opens him up
to possibly continuing Sunset almost to Five Mile Road giving
Now
him access to many homes, which will be well under the RUF and
we are very much opposed to that.
Mr. Ronayne: I would just like to close by saying last year when we went
through this and I had options on the property, the big
concern was that nobody would have future development now off
of Bainbridge by taking the back pieces of that property and
putting a road through. My intention all along was to put a
few homes in there and this would have been an easy way to
come in, do a lot split and go through that and add the sewer
and build the houses by now. I did have a builder approach me
that wanted to purchase the back piece of everybody else's
piece of property and was quite surprised that I had even come
up with this building on Lyndon so I gave him time to sort
things out, go and see if he could put the pieces of property
together. I talked to some home owners in there. As usual in
the cases of these type of things they find out that somebody
wants to put in a street and the price of the property goes up
and up and it didn't become a feasible project at all. This
is the last time I plan on coming through the City for
anything. Again, I feel those lots are consistent with pretty
much what is in the area. I understand the concern with RUF.
I have heard all the arguments when they went for the Five
Mile piece of property, but if you drive by the property, you
will see it can't be developed any further if they front on
Lyndon. It will be all open space in back. It is going to be
a beautiful place to look out in the back yards. I know the
concern with property values. I happen to be a broker in
Livonia. I grew up a half a mile from this piece of property.
I have known it for 30 some years. The houses that are going
to go in there are going to be top quality. They will be
$175,000 price range. I beg you to present one sale in that
square mile for $175,000. I have sold several homes in that
area so I feel we will not be a detriment to it and the homes
we do put in there, whether it will be three or four, will do
nothing but enhance the area. In closing I would just like to
say as far as property values go, these homes wouldn't have an
adverse affect.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, my understanding was these three parcels that are up
there do not meet the RUF.
Mr. Nagy: They are .46 acres, slightly under the full 1/2 acre.
Mr. McCann: So he could not build three homes at this point with the
current RUF. In order to put three homes up there he has to
have the zoning changed to R-5 to be in the proper zoning
district.
13536
Mr. Nagy: Due to the fact he was granted the lot split by the City
Council he easily could take an appeal to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. McCann: So in order to get three homes on the property, he has to
either go to the ZBA or have the zoning changed to R-5. In
order to get four houses he has to get the property changed
and then go to the ZBA.
Mr. Nagy: And plat.
Mr. McCann: If we change the zoning to R-5 tonight, he could put three
homes up there and the whole thing would be done.
Mr. Nagy: He could avoid going to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-1-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Patricia Blomberg, it was
#7-129-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
July 26, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-6-1-14
by J.K.L. Associates, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on
the north side of Lyndon Avenue between Bainbridge Avenue and
Bredin Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from RUF to R-5,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 94-6-1-14 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will remove the
non-conforming status of the subject lots.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with existing
lot widths and areas of the existing lots.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to explain why I am going to vote against the
zoning request. I think that what we were proposing to do
here tonight was a way to allow the petitioner to proceed to
do the development that is going to form a barrier that
addresses most of the concerns that the people expressed
relative to further encroachment. The problem with it is it
opens the possibility to a fourth site which I think is
inappropriate. If the issue here were to simply bring the
lots into compliance with the size of the lots to bring the
13537
zoning district into compliance, then I could support it for
three lots but I don't want to open up the possibility or to
send a signal that a fourth lot is acceptable.
Mr. McCann: I agree with what you said but I feel the proper zoning is
better done by putting it in here. We will have R-5 district,
homes fit proper, he can go ahead. He is going to get the
impression from you, me and the other members tonight that
four homes are probably not appropriate. He would have to go
to the ZBA. He would have to get plat approval back before us
with other public hearings. He has seen the demonstration
tonight. I think we can put a solution to this tonight by
going to the R-5 zoning. We will have proper zoning in the
area for three homes. It will not require a variance and in
the long run I think it is clear that the City is probably not
going to go along with four homes anyways. The process of
doing so would make it difficult for the developer. I think
it is appropriate zoning for three homes.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. McCann, you make good valid points and I agree with
everything you say. I guess I just want to make it very clear
my position relative to the number three versus four and I
guess if the zoning were successful John, if he pressed
forward with the request for the fourth one, would we then
have our opportunity at plat time or would that have been a
decided issue by the Zoning Board of Appeals? Would they act
first to grant the variance for the fourth home and then we
have to live with it?
Mr. Nagy: If he presented a plat for a fourth home, the plat would not
``"' meet the R-5 zoning standards, so you would be in a position
to reject the plat.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Blomberg, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: Piercecchi, Engebretson
ABSENT: Morrow, TaPine
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
94-6-2-18 by McDonald's Corporation requesting waiver use approval
to construct a full service restaurant with a drive-up window
facility on property located on the Past side of Middlebelt Road
between Seven Mile Road and Vassar Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
13538
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 Fire Marshal's office
stating they have no objection to this proposal. Also in our
`,, file is a letter from Ordinance Enforcement stating the
following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Typically,
this restaurant would expect to do more than 50% of its
business through the drive-up window. At peak times, the 7
parking spaces located between the loading zone and the radius
of the traffic lane serving the drive-up window may be totally
blocked, rendering them useless, or worse yet, trapping
vehicles in them. 2. Once in the drive-up lane, a vehicle
may not leave it or bypass it until it reaches the ordering
station. If the loading zone/escape lane is occupied by a
delivery vehicle, there is no means of bypass. What is
indicated on the site plan as a loading zone/escape lane
cannot be both at the same time and may prove to be neither.
3. The dumpster cannot be emptied if the parking spaces
adjacent to the gates of the enclosure are occupied by
vehicles (trash pickup is not permitted prior to 7:00 a.m. ) .
4. The wall sign shown on the front elevation is approximately
43 s.f. in area; a maximum of 31 s.f. would be permitted. A
fully detailed sign package should be submitted for review and
comment. 5. The notes on the site plan indicate that the flag
pole is intended for a U.S. flag and a McDonald's flag. The
sign ordinance treats the McDonald's flag as a sign and would
not permit it. They end by saying the site plan is severely
flawed from the standpoint of parking and traffic circulation.
Serious consideration should be given to the elimination of
*vowindoor service at this facility.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come down and tell us your reasons
for this request.
Tom Racklyeft, 2000 Town Center, Suite 700, Southfield: We are before you
tonight requesting waiver use approval for the construction of
a McDonald's restaurant located in the old Livonia Post Office
building. If I may I would like to present the site plan.
(He presented the site plan to the Commission). This
particular facility is a McDonald's restaurant smaller than
what you are typically used to. This particular building has
a square footage of 2,066 square feet. The restaurant will
have 32 seats and basically the appearance will be that of a
normal McDonald's restaurant although it is smaller. That is
the direction of McDonald's Corporation. Our restaurants will
typically get smaller. This particular site provides for 26
parking stalls, a drive-in that provides for two-way traffic,
90 degree parking. The drive-thru lane in the back is
isolated. There is not a direct passing lane. The property
itself is 100 feet wide and would not accommodate a passing
lane. However, the loading area can double as an escape lane.
Our deliveries are once every four days and we can control the
13539
times. We have provided stacking for ten cars. The present
site and the building on the site today is approximately 6,000
square feet. As I have indicated, this building is just over
2,000 square feet so roughly there is about a 66% reduction.
I would also mention that the landscaping right at the present
site, I haven't seen any. This particular landscaping plan
will have approximately 16% of the site in landscaping. If I
may respond to some of the comments that were referenced.
First of all the typical McDonald's restaurant 50% of the
business is through the drive-thru, that I can't dispute.
However, again if you look at the stacking and also the
approach out of this drive, there is approximately room for
five cars in a single file lane leaving the drive-thru. We
previously presented a traffic report. Basically, there are
adequate gaps in the traffic from our consultant's
recommendation to provide for convenient access onto
Middlebelt and, again, keep the drive-thru moving. I would
also point out that as it pertains to the loading area, we can
control the deliveries. The dumpster area, there is a point
that the gates are open. Again, we can control that area.
Typically our pickups are in the morning when our business is
at its lowest level. That time period typically is around ten
o'clock. The wall sign, it is an oversight on our part and it
will meet the ordinance at 31 square feet. If I may, again,
it was an oversight as far as the flagpole. There will be one
flagpole with a U.S. flag on it. I point out that as far as
the site plan being severely flawed, we believe that this
particular site plan is not severely flawed but actually
provides good circulation. It doesn't provide for an escape
lane but there are a number of businesses throughout the
tri-county area, and we have several, that do not provide the
escape lanes but operate very efficiently. When people
understand and know the business and get to know that
particular restaurant and decide the drive-thru is not for
them, they will go inside. I would also point out that we did
attempt to get property on either the back or the side but
through present leases in place we are not going to be able to
secure any additional property or even any cross-access
easements. With that Mr. Chairman I will conclude my
presentation.
Mr. Alanskas: When a car drives up and places an order and pays for it and
then picks up the food, what is the average time?
Mr. Racklyeft: We like to say we do it in less than one minute. Basically
if you look at it overall, we look at basically one minute 30
seconds total. That would be max. I would also like to tell
you that when we have one minute service in total, we have
restaurants, and obviously I would tell you that they are
bigger restaurants than that, but they handle in excess of 120
cars in an hour through the drive-thru windows.
13540
Mr. Alanskas: At a lunch time haw many people would you have taking care of
your customers at the drive-thru?
Mr. Racklyeft: There would be essentially one person taking the order and
then approximately maybe three individuals assembling the
order and actually presenting the product to the customer.
Mr. Alanskas: Why I asked, Sunday I went to the McDonald's at Five Mile and
Haggerty and it was not that busy early in the morning and by
driving up and placing my order, there were no cars behind me
and there was one car in front of me, it took seven minutes
before I got my merchandise and when I left there, there were
nine cars behind me. This was on a Sunday morning. What
would happen on a weekday? At that corner, how much could it
back up? I would think it could back up quite a bit.
Mr. Racklyeft: First of all I apologize for the service you received at our
restaurant. In terms of backup, I mentioned there are
approximately ten spaces to this point for cars. One of the
points I would make is the last car would be in line at one
minute service for ten minutes. I would also point out that
between this back car and this point approximately to the edge
of the building you have room for approximately another six
cars. That is not what we want to see but again we are
looking at it from the situation that the worse case is
something that you would experience for whatever reason, the
key point would be the traffic would be stacking on our site
and not on Middlebelt Road.
Mr. Piercecchi: You describe this as a full service restaurant with 32 seats.
You are aware that you need additional parking for drive-up
window patrons. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Racklyeft: I am not aware of any additional parking.
Mr. Piercecchi: The ordinance calls for parking spaces located beyond drive-up
windows shall be designated for use of drive-up window
patrons. You do not have adequate parking space for the
drive-up window. The ordinance calls for ingress and egress
be available from a public street by means of at least two
separate driveways at least 40 feet apart from one another.
You only have one, correct?
Mr. Racklyeft: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Again, you are in violation of Section 11.03 of the ordinance
pertaining to full service restaurants. They mention the
stack up lanes where you are really going to have problems
there. I think we really have a problem with the site Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Racklyeft: If I may, in terms of the curb cuts, we have been in contact
13541
with the gentlemen who handles the permits and controls that
road and frankly their comment to us is on a 100 foot lot to
put two curb cuts, they are not too pleased. We have
basically one combined and they have seen the plans and
`.w actually approved those plans.
Mr. Piercecchi: To me it indicates the site is not large enough.
Mr. Engebretson: Whereas the county isn't thrilled with the idea of two curb
cuts that close together, the City does have an ordinance and
we feel equally strong that there is a good reason to have a
requirement like that particularly near a very, very, very hisy
intersection such as we are dealing with here. I am very
concerned with the traffic flow on the site because when
people from the drive-thru are exiting, there are also people
from the sit-down parking area trying to back out and exiting
and merging with the flow of the restaurant, where, assuming
the stacking for the restaurant is adequate and it doesn't
interfere with people backing out in order to make the
exceptional type of exit from a McDonald's restaurant,
typically you drive around and bypass the drive-thru window,
there are going to be possibilities of confusion as people may
be accustomed to driving around the restaurant to get out.
They are going to find themselves entrapped in this drive-thru
lane with no escape opportunity, or if they are able to back
out and come down and merge in, we have two potentially busy
lanes of traffic coming together in a very tight area with
very few cars that could be accommodated in a very small area,
and at the same time there is a possibility that someone's
NIN.. food may not be ready and they are asked to pull ahead until
someone brings it out, which happens periodically at your
restaurant and others that are similar in character. I guess
the question would be if someone found themselves in a
position where they were told to pull ahead, where would they
pull ahead to?
Mr. Racklyeft: In terms of pulling ahead Mr. Chairman, that would not be
possible at this site. It would just create a traffic hazard
obviously because the cars behind them would back up so they
would have to wait at that window. That is going to put us on
notice in terms of delivering the most efficient service that
we can deliver not to turn off our customers. If I may, in
terms of this little throat right here, we too are concerned
about that and have met with members of the City. We are
willing and are going to actually, whether the City likes it
or not, put a stop sign at two locations. Our feeling is that
is again a traffic control device that is going to force
people to actually look at the merge.
Mr. McCann: The best intentions are still going to have somebody waiting
for long periods of time. Cars are going to back up for
whatever reasons. Nobody is perfect. The Engineering
13542
Department says the site is just not adequate for indoor
seating at this time. You don't have enough land for it. If
you get the impression that the Planning Commission and the
Council are not inclined to approve your site plan as
Now submitted, are you going to come back with a drive-thru only?
Mr. Racklyeft: I can't say. We have discussed this with many study sessions.
We felt we heard loud and clear the feeling of the Planning
Commission as it pertains to the drive-thru only and came up
with this particular building. Am I going to come back? I
can't tell you.
Mr. McCann: Let me clarify my position a little bit. Do you want us to
table this so you can come back with a new site plan rather
than have us vote on it tonight based on what you are
proposing?
Mr. Racklyeft: I feel that what I am proposing now doPR a couple of things.
It meets the spirit of the ordinance, is similar to other uses
that have been approved already, for example an isolated
driveway at the Burger King across from our facility at Five
Mile and Middlebelt. We have done everything we can at this
particular site to comply with the ordinance. In terms of the
waiting spaces, I am not familiar with the section of the
ordinance. The other situations though we feel the traffic
flow will be able to get out of the site. We have provided
traffic studies to the City. Our feeling basically is we
don't want our customers to be affected. We don't want to
build something just for the sake of throwing up a building
Nayand slapping the arches on. We want our customers to find it a
pleasant experience and to be successful. We feel we can do that
here. My response is I would like the issue dealt with rather than
come back with a revised site plan.
Mr. McCann: I have no objection to that. I don't think it is a fair
comparison to the Five Mile Burger King only because it has
some curb cuts, it has multiple ways for the traffic to go and
you don't have the same space they have.
Mr. Racklyeft: I would also like to point out, and it is very difficult, what
I am facing here is a perception of the situation of a
"typical McDonald's" with our 80 plus seats or your typical
fast-food restaurant. This restaurant has 32 seats.
Mrs. Blomberg: I see this traffic pattern as being quite dangerous. I have
been in a lot of McDonald's. I have raised two kids. I see
the traffic pattern being dangerous to the children
particularly. They get out of the car. They are all excited.
They want to go get their hamburgers. The traffic is going in
both directions. In most McDonald's they are not doing this.
Therefore, the children are not expecting to look both ways at
a McDonald's parking lot. I see it as being dangerous.
13543
Mr. Racklyeft: I appreciate that. I would also mention there are numerous
sites where we have parking on both sides and the two-way
traffic flow.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Racklyeft, did I understand you to say you submitted a
traffic study to the City?
Mr. Racklyeft: We did during the discussion sessions regarding the drive-thru
only. I do have extra sets but it was my understanding our
traffic consultant had also submitted a revision. If that is
not here, I have it here with me and I will be glad to share.
Mr. Engebretson: It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to take it under
consideration tonight but it will be a good idea to have it in
the file. I would like to remind you that on the previous
occasions where you may have been given the impression that we
would have preferred this type of facility to what was being
proposed, to that extent I will agree with your comment, but
the concern was not the drive-thru only type of restaurant but
it was not the standard McDonald's type of restaurant. It was
a McDonald's Classic if I recall correct, and we had numerous
points of concern after visiting other sites. I think it is
just important that we keep in mind that we were dealing with
an entirely different issue at that point. You apparently
were trying to comply with the ordinance to the extent you
could but as Mr. Piercecchi said it appears that try as you
will and try as diligently as you have, it is difficult to get
a proper flow of traffic and a proper use of this land given
the small size and the volume of traffic. I am not saying it
,ft. is impossible to work out but there certainly is a serious
question as to whether or not some of these concerns are going
to result in real problems or if they are just issues we could
deal with in a hypothetical manner and may not really in fact
be a problem, but we have to deal with the ordinance. That is
our guide.
Mr. Racklyeft: Mr. Chairman, let me call on a couple of other points
regarding this traffic study. This particular portion of the
traffic study based on the I.T.E. Trip Generation studies in
particular looks at A.M. peak traffic and P.M. peak traffic,
etc. I think the important notation there is the peak number
of cars on the site during any one hour. Based on the traffic
study it is 65 cars. I take that a step further on the second
page, and we had this traffic consultant specifically look at
this issue. He looked at our restaurant at Eight Mile and
Haggerty. We instructed him to do that for a couple of
different reasons. The first reason is that particular
restaurant is a very busy restaurant. The second thing is
that restaurant is on a very busy road, Haggerty Road,
especially since the restaurant is just north of Eight Mile on
the east side of the street on the other side of Elias
Brothers. Traffic stacks up tremendously making left hand
w..
13544
turns onto Eight Mile Road, especially at rush hour. Our
traffic consultant looked at that restaurant and specifically
looked at the drive-thru during our peak period, which is our
noon hour. Maximum number of cars that were waiting in a 15
"%Dv minute segment in the drive-thru were 11 cars at that
restaurant. From noon to 12:15 there were 7, from 12:15 to
12:30 there were 7 and from 12:30 to 12:45 11 cars and then 6.
That is cars waiting in the stacking line. This particular
facility, although the property is smaller, so is the
facility.
Mr. Engebretson: It is regrettable that we didn't have that information but we
didn't. It is good to have it in the file. Mr. Racklyeft
before we close the public hearing I want to tell you that the
information that you just gave us on the traffic study, I
would have liked to have the opportunity to absorb that in
some detail. At first glance it appears to work against you.
At 65 cars per hour exiting that facility, keeping in mind
again where that facility is located, if half of those cars
wanted to make a left hand turn south on Middlebelt Road, I
think you are going to create an intense problem with people
leaving the drive-thru facility as well the sit-down
restaurant. While I haven't had experience leaving that
particular site, I have had numerous occasions to exit the
properties just to the north, and making left hand turns at
certain times of the day could be a matter of a number of
minutes and several changes in the traffic light, so if you
are putting a car a minute through there with those kinds of
egress problems, I think that it proves a point that the site
is likely to be inadequate to handle the flaw that we have
described without some kind of exit to the rear or some other
manner to deal with the problems.
Mr. Racklyeft: I would like to respond by going back a few years to when the
post office was there. The peak period for the post office
was during the holiday season which also corresponded with
peak season at the shopping center and served very nicely and
actually if you looked at that from a parking standpoint, most
of the parking was in front, etc. I do think this is an
improvement to this particular facility as it sits today.
Mr. Engebretson: It might be an improvement but that doesn't make it good.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-2-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and
unanimously approved, it was
#7-130-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
July 26, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-6-2-18
by McDonald's Corporation requesting waiver use approval to
13545
construct a full service restaurant with a drive-up window facility
on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between
Seven Mile Road and Vassar Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
`r.. Council that Petition 94-6-2-18 be denied for the following
reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section
11.03(1)a.4. , 11.03(1)a.5. and 11.03(1)c. with respect to the
requirement for a by-pass lane and additional off-street
parking for drive-up window patrons and the requirement that
ingress and egress be available from a public street by means
of at least two separate driveways at least forty (40) feet
apart from one another.
3) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
4) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote
and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not
over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being
proposed.
*o.. 5) That the location and size of the proposed use, the inadequate
site layout and access to and from the street giving access to
it are such that traffic to and from the site will be overly
congested and hazardous and will unduly conflict with the
normal traffic of the area.
6) That the proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible
with the adjoining uses of the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: I would like to make it clear why I have a problem with this.
McDonald's is a great corporation. They do a lot of good
things for the community. They draw well from the community.
In this case the property is just too small. There was a
problem with the Livonia Post Office, people trying to turn
left, people trying to find parking. What I think we are
doing here is recreating those problems. He compares this to
other locations that have similar problems. They have two-way
traffic. They have a single entrance and exit with one curb
cut. They have areas where there are no by-pass lanes. That
13546
is true you can pick out things at certain restaurants around
the City and around the County but they don't have all these
problems. This one has all the problems. It is just too much
for this particular site. I think it would be a hazard to the
`41.., community to develop it in the manner and therefore I am in
agreement with the recommendation to deny.
Mr. EngPhretson, Chairman, declared the notion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-6-2-19 by Herc's Roast Beef requesting waiver use approval to
increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing
restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann
Arbor Road and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating their department has no objection to this waiver use
proposal. We have also received letters from the Fire
Marshal's office and Traffic Bureau stating their departments
have no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a
letter from Ordinance Enforcement stating the following
deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The front yard
setback of the building is deficient as it exists. The
proposed addition will worsen that slightly and result in an
encroachment of 20 ft. into the required front yard. 2. The
parking layout on the west side of the building does not
conform to the required parking space depth. The site plan
indicates that the depth of each bank of parking is 16 ft. ,
required is 22.5 ft. , which is deficient 6.5 ft. , in depth for
each space. Ordinance 543 Section 18.37e states "Whenever a
use requiring off street parking is increased in floor area,
and such use is located in a building existing on or before
the effective date of this ordinance, additional parking space
shall be provided as set out below, not only for the addition
of the building but for the original building as well, in
amounts hereafter specified for that use." This can be
remedied by eliminating the bank of parking (6 spaces) closest
to the building. 3. As proposed, the number of parking spaces
provided will be deficient by 31 spaces if the aforementioned
bank of parking is eliminated, or by 25 parking spaces if it
remains. The end by saying these deficiencies may be appealed
to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Ivan Benda, 130 Sunnybrook Fast, Royal Oak: I am the architect for the owner,
Mr. Chemello who has owned Herc's for 16 years. We have
currently under consideration a parking agreement with the
13547
Days Inn people. It is not signed at this point because Mr.
Gottlieb, the signatory for the letter, was not available but
we would like to have the project considered for approval on
the basis of getting that signature on the parking agreement.
fir.
Mr. Engebretson: Can you tell us how many parking places?
Mr. Benda: It is for the full 31 so we can take care of those six parking
places. There is evidence of a previous site plan dated 1975
where there was a cross easement parking agreement in the
past.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you submit a copy of that agreement albeit unsigned?
Mr. Benda: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: I was by your site the other day but I forgot to look. How
many handicap parking spaces do you have there now?
Mr. Benda: Three, two in the rear and one on the side.
Mr. Alanskas: You are going to get 31 parking spaces from the Inn?
Mr. Benda: At the south end of the property.
Mr. Alanskas: How far back would they be? How far would the patrons have to
walk?
Mr. Benda: There is a rear entrance to the restaurant so you would have
to walk I would say about 80 feet.
Now
Mr. Alanskas: So if the handicap spaces were taken, they would have a hard
time getting into the facility, especially in the winter time.
Not that it would happen but if it did, they would have a long
walk.
Mr. Benda: That is true.
Steve Gottlieb: I represent the Days Inn, 36655 Plymouth Road. He has
mentioned an agreement that you might have. We do not have a
copy of the agreement as of yet. There is an agreement that
is supposed to be forthcoming and I would ask that you table
this until we have it read by an attorney as well as
ourselves.
Mr. Engebretson: That is interesting.
Mr. Gottlieb: We have had conversations about doing this proposed agreement
but there are some terns that we have to come up with.
Mr. Engebretson: What you are really saying is you would like to have some time
to have your attorney review the document, but are you
generally inclined to predict a favorable outcome?
13548
Mr. Gottlieb: Yes we are pending the agreement.
Mr. McCann: It is my understanding an agreement has been signed. Has an
agreement been signed and sent over to them for their approval
'Imor or have you just not received an agreement at all, you just
have a proposed settlement?
Mr. Gottlieb: There is an agreement that they were supposed to give to us.
Mr. McCann: You have not signed it or seen it or anything?
Mr. Gottlieb: No we have not.
Mr. McCann: But you have agreed basically on the terms and conditions, it
just hasn't been put into writing yet.
Mr. Gottlieb: Yes sir.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engehretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on 94-6-2-19 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on Petition 94-6-2-19 by Herc's Roast Beef
requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and
seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the south
side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor Road and Levan Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-6-2-19 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 7-7-94, as revised, prepared by Ivan
Benda, Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 6-16-94 prepared by Ivan
Benda, Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to.
3) That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 137.
4) That any roof top mechanical units shall be screened from public
view on all four sides.
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 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
13549
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
%o.. 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.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and
unanimously approved, it was
#7-131-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
July 26, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-6-2-19
by Herc's Roast Beef requesting waiver use approval to increase the
floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located
on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor Road and Levan
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-6-2-19 until
the Regular Meeting of August 16, 1994.
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
94-6-2-20 by Carlton P. Ostdiek, President, Diversified Glass
Services, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a new
Henderson Glass store to be located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 27.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal.
We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal's Office
and the Traffic Bureau stating their offices have no
objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter
from Ordinance Enforcement stating the following deficiencies
or problems were found: 1. This property was originally the
parking lot for the Livonia Tire building located immediately
to the west. The canopy extending out from the east side of
the old tire building extends onto this property by
approximately 13 ft. and must be removed to eliminate the
encroachment. 2. The lawn areas in the front yard and the
adjoining Plymouth Road right of way should be established by
sod. There is no indication of underground sprinklers on the
plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
Andy Moore, 1871 Woodslee, Troy: Mr. Ostdiek is not available. He is out of
town. I am an officer of Henderson Glass and I hope to be
able to answer your questions.
13550
Mr. Engebretson: Tell us what you plan to do here sir.
Mr. Moore: Essentially what we are trying to do here is relocate the
current business location, which as you probably know is on
Plymouth east of Middlebelt, to a larger more accommodating
facility at the site plan we are proposing. We would like to
enlarge our available floor space. Quite frankly the building
east of Middlebelt does not meet our current criteria for
exterior design and/or appearance so we would like to upgrade
so that is the reason for making the move. I think the site
plan petition is pretty self-explanatory as to what we want to
do. It is going to be general business, automotive repair.
We are going to employ about eight people there. The current
staff is about the same size at the existing location. We
have been a Livonia business neighbor since 1972 and we are
simply looking for a better facility.
Mr. Engebretson: Give us a brief description of the types of products and
services that you would offer at this location.
Mr. Moore: Certainly. We participate in automotive, commercial and
residential glass repairs essentially. We do windshields,
door lights and back lights. We do storm doors, tub
enclosures, mirror walls, custom doorwalls, that type of
thing. Occasionally we do a replacement, which would be an
entry door on a commercial business, storefronts, etc. We
also do a minor amount of automotive theft repair work for the
insurance industry. They are our principal client and that
consists primarily of replacement things or doing minor
''► repairs to steering columns. We don't do any heavy industry
or automotive repairs.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you still have the cellular phones?
Mr. Moore: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: What percent of your hisiness is the installation of
windshields?
Mr. Moore: Approximately 65%.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have three bays or two on the side and one in
the back?
Mr. Moore: Three bays.
Mr. Alanskas: What size are the doors going to be?
Mr. Moore: I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Alanskas: You couldn't put a big truck in there?
13551
Mr. Moore: We don't plan on putting any semi's in there. They are 12 foot
doors if I remember correctly.
Mr. Alanskas: I think this would be an added addition to that side of
Neap, Plymouth Road. Do you own the building where you are going
from or is that leased?
Mr. Moore: That building is leased but it is owned by an employee of the
corporation.
Mr. Engebretson: What have you done sir about the comment regarding the
underground sprinklers? Have you modified the plans to
include them?
Mr. Moore: Typically that is our arrangement. We don't have any nerd for
dragging hoses around. I have pictures of our 30 locations
and that is representative of what we do at all of them, have
sprinkler systems in ground. That would be part of our plan.
Mr. Moore presented the plans to the Commission.
Mr. Engebretson: What are you planning to do regarding this encroaching
canopy?
Mr. Moore: I think there are a number of options available. Certainly
those would have to be addressed with the owner of the
adjacent building. There is a common drive as you are aware.
We are very amenable to almost any cure that the City is in
favor of at this point in time. To be more specific, I don't
believe I can be, because we haven't discussed that with the
owner of the adjacent property. I understand there is a
vacant piece of City property that is available. We have an
interest in that. There are many things we can do. That
parking on the back would allow for additional parking and
would facilitate what it is that we are trying to do.
Mr. Engebretson: You do realize that you are going to have to deal with that
issue?
Mr. Moore: Yes whatever is required, we are willing to participate.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-2-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-132-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
July 26, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-6-2-20
by Carlton P. Ostdiek, President, Diversified Glass Services, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to construct a new Henderson Glass
store to be located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
13552
Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 94-6-2-20 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site and Building Elevation Plan dated 6-17-94
prepared by Van Wienen Professional Group which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
2) 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.
3) That any signage proposed to be erected on the building or on
the site shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to
a permit being issued.
4) That all lawn areas will be established with sod, which will
be serviced by an underground irrigation system.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special
and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
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
94-6-2-21 by Gibraltar Construction Group requesting waiver use
approval to construct a Builders Square store on property located
on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Plymouth Road and the
CSX Railroad in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
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 that the 60 feet of frontage on Middlebelt Road (North
of the McDonald site) has not been dedicated to its fullest
extent in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan.
13553
Further a sidewalk should be placed across this 60 foot
frontage. We have also received a letter from the Fire
Marshal's office stating their office has no objection to this
proposal; however their approval is contingent upon the
installation of an approved water supply and fire hydrants on
site. Also in our file is 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 Ordinance Enforcement stating the following
deficiencies or problems were found: 1. A portion of the rear
of the building is proposed to have a 40 ft. setback; required
is a minimum setback of 60 ft. resulting in a setback
deficiency of 20 ft. The lumber staging area is shown on the
site plan as encroaching into the required rear yard by the
same 20 ft. Section 11.09 of the Zoning Ordinance states in
part, "No part of the minimum required front yard, side yard
or rear yard shall be used for either the storage, placement
or display of merchandise or equipment. . ."; the lumber staging
area is subject to the same setback requirements as the
building itself. 2. This development site has Firestone Tire
and Comerica Bank as existing uses in addition to the proposed
new building which will be occupied by Builders Square and
Perry Drugs. By ordinance, the parking required to support
the occupancy load of the entire site is a minimum of 908
parking spaces. Proposed are 584 parking spaces, resulting in
a deficiency of 324 spaces. 3. Indicated on the plans for the
front elevation of the Builders Square store are 5 wall signs,
which amount to approximately 574 s.f. , of sign area.
Permitted is 1 wall sign on the store front not to exceed 400
'�.. s.f. of sign area. 4. Permitted on the entire development
site are 2 ground signs; 1 on the Plymouth Road frontage and 1
on the Middlebelt frontage. Existing are 3 ground signs
(Firestone, Comerica, and an old sign previously shared by
Duff's and Woodland Medical, currently without faces) .
Proposed in addition to the 3 existing ground signs are 2 new
signs, resulting in an excess of 3 ground signs.
5. Presumably, the driveway from Plymouth Rd. , which coincides
with the rear of Perry Drugs, will serve as the loading space
for Perry's. This would also appear to be the only means for
delivery trucks to access the rear of Builders Square to or
from Plymouth Rd. The area on the east side of the Firestone
Tire building is not suitable for this purpose. They end by
saying the deficiencies described in items 1 thru 4 may be
appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson: i also have a letter which i received today from Stan
Anderson, President of Clement Circle Civic Assoc. stating the
Clement Circle Civic Association is not opposed to a Builders
Square store as such at this location. However, we strongly
urge that this proposal as presented today July 23 be denied
for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not provide
the required parking spaces, it does not provide the required
13554
landscaping, it does not provide the required distance from
adjoining residential areas, and it has excessive signage.
All those deficiencies have been better described in the
pre-hearing review document. 2. A new project of this
magnitude and at this major corner should enhance the area and
not set an example of allowed zoning violations. This project
could serve as an encouragement to other neighboring
businesses to spruce up to attract customers drawn to this new
business. To allow Builders Square to get by without
complying with established requirements sets a bad precedent
and could certainly encourage other business locations to try
to avoid compliance with the zoning ordinance. 3. The present
occupants of opposite corners, i.e. , Wonderland, Family Buggy
and Ford are doing much to maintain the appearance of their
property. If this corner can also be improved to the extent
this development offers, it would do much to upgrade the
entire area. 4. Our area is not presently suffering from a
lack of lumber and related building material stores. Handy
Andy, H Q, and a present Builders Square, plus others are all
close to this site. I would like to pass this down to Mr.
Nagy to be included in the public record. With that we will
ask the petitioner to step forward and give us your reasons
for making this request.
Allen Boyer, Ledy Design Group, 3135 Pinetree Road, Suite C, Lansing: We
prepared the site plan for the petitioner and we are here on
behalf of Gibraltar Construction Group, the petitioner. Also
with me this evening are Mr. Ted Simons from Builders Square,
the proposed tenant, and Mr. Pal-1 Thomas from R&D Management,
the owner of a portion of the property and the developer for
the site. What I would like to do is place our rendering up
here and discuss it a little bit with you and then answer any
questions you may have. (He presented the site plan). As
was pointed out, this is located at the corner of Plymouth
Road and Middlebelt Road. There is a bank at the corner and
an existing Firestone store on the property and an existing
McDonald's Restaurant to the north. What is being proposed
here is first the demolition of the existing building that is
at the site and actually reorienting the site so it faces
Middlebelt Road. In addition to that would be the addition of
a parcel of land to the north that completes the wraparound of
the McDonald's Restaurant and allows for a driveway to come
out on Middlebelt Road. In order to complete that what we
would attempt to do, and what we are suggesting, is that we
would actually close one of the driveways out of McDonald's
and incorporate that driveway into the new driveway entrance
into the site, which we believe would alleviate additional
congestion problem due to having multiple driveways in such a
short distance.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you explain what the impact that would have on the
McDonald's facility?
Mr. Boyer: Basically it would not have much of an impact at all. In
13555
fact, the existing drive from McDonald's, as we believe, comes
out here onto the Middlebelt drive. Basically all we would do
is just turn that driveway 90 degrees and come out to the
existing drive here and allow them to access at almost the
same point. It does eliminate an additional curb cut.
Basically what is being proposed here is the development of a
Builders Square store and a proposed retail, which we
understand would be a Perry Drug Store. The Builders Square
is almost 110,000 square feet. The proposed retail is about
10,000 square ft, which would make a total of 120,000 square
feet of floor space on the site. As I mentioned before, in
order to do this we would have to demolish the existing
building on the site. In addition to other improvements we
would make, one important thing would be to reconstruct the
existing screen wall behind the proposed Builders Square that
separates the proposed building from the existing residential
area. The existing wall is somewhat dilapidated and needs to
be upgraded and that would be part of this project. One of
the things that we do propose to do as well is the existing
landscaping at the site right now only makes up about 4% of
the lot area, and what we would be proposing here would be
upgrading that to approximately 8% of landscaping. We do
understand, however, that the ordinance requires that
landscaping be 15% of the site and with that in mind we would,
assuming that this waiver use is granted, go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a variance on that knowing that what we
are doing is basically doubling what is there right now. One
of the things I would like to point out is the existing
building only has about 30% occupancy right now. About 70% of
the building is vacant. We feel this would be a great
enhancement to the neighborhood by actually creating a
situation where there are less number of tenants and they
would be long-term tenants and therefore it would allow for a
better occupancy to the site.
We understand, obviously, that there are a number of
deficiencies with the site plan as Mr. MacDonald's letter
pointed out and we were aware of those at the time that we did
prepare this plan, those deficiencies being parking,
obviously, landscaping, some traffic issues with particular
note the approach of trucks to the rear of the building. We
have weighed our truck templates on there and it does appear
to work without any problems. In terms of parking, knowing
that the ordinance does require a certain number of parking
spaces, we have approached this from the point of view of
attempting to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
based on actual usage of other Builders Square stores. We
feel the number of parking spaces that would actually be
required by Builders Square would be somewhat less than the
ordinance requires and therefore there may be some discussion
13556
in terms of being able to get a variance. So in terms of the
deficiencies we are perfectly aware of what those are and
assuming that the waiver use would be granted, we would be
prepared to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get variances
for those issues.
In terms of the other information that was listed from the
Engineering Department, there would be no problem with
granting an additional right-of-way along this 60-foot strip
or the installation of the sidewalk to continue the pedestrian
walkway across that area.
I guess to conclude, we feel that this plan would greatly
enhance the shopping district that is there now by eliminating
an old building, one that is mostly vacant at this time,
upgrading the landscaping that is there by basically doubling
the area and providing what we feel would be a good quality
retail center to this part of the City of Livonia. If you
have any questions, I would be happy to answer them and I am
sure Mr. Thomas and Mr. Simons would be.
Mr. Alanskas: For that 110,000 square feet building and floor space, does
that include the 32,000 square feet of the garden center or is
that plus the 32,000 square feet for the garden center?
Mr. Boyer: No that does not include the garden center.
Mr. Alanskas: So actually that would be 140,000 square feet that you would
be having there with the Builders Square.
Mr. Boyer: Actually the square footage that is included here is not all
garden shop. Most of what you see there is lumber staging
area and is basically just storage.
Mr. Alanskas: But it is an additional 36,000 square feet so that is 142,000
square feet for Builders Square plus 10,000 for Perry Drugs.
Mr. Boyer: That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: You have a deficiency of 300 some cars. It looks like you
have parking on the north side of the garden center.
Mr. Boyer: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: How far would a customer have to walk if he parked at the very
northerly end of that lot to get into Builders Square? Haw
many feet would that be roughly?
Mr. Boyer: I believe there is access to the Builders Square through the
garden shop so it would be roughly as much as 180 feet to get
into the garden shop, which is very much the same should they
park out along Middlebelt Road.
13557
Mr. Alanskas: That is quite a ways to walk to get into the facility.
Mr. Boyer: It is. That is true and it would be considerably longer if we
had more parking space.
Mr. Alanskas: We all agree that you do definitely need more parking that
this site does not have. To take a phase from an
ex-Commissioner "Its like trying to put three pounds of coffee
in a one pound can". I am not saying that this site does not
have possibilities but the way it is as of now it is just so
crowded and with that bank there and the Firestone store, it
is just cramped. I, as one Commissioner, can see being
deficient 15 spaces, 20 spaces, but to be deficient 300
spaces, that is going to be putting a burden on the City and
on the safety of cars coming in and out. Let me ask you a
question. Do you have a survey study by hours of how many
sales you have? What percentage of sales say from 9:00,
10:00. I know when you sell a product your receipts have the
time of day on them. Do you have data for the Commission we
could look at that?
Ted Simons, Real Estate Representative for Builders Square for this area. My
address is 3100 West Big Beaver, Troy: Let me address some of
the concerns you have because they are certainly legitimate
and hope I can lay some of that to rest. As you well know, it
is very difficult to find the ideal green open space where we
may put a prototypical Builders Square store with the exact
number of parking spaces that a City pursuant to their code
may request. In this particular case, we have to look at what
``- the land allows us to do and what are the constraints of the
site and make the best opportunity of it knowing full well our
operation of the business and what our own parking
requirements are because the worse thing in the world for us
is to build a store and not have enough parking for our
customers. We then have a great capital investment and not
enough customers to use it. So what we are able to do here is
look at our own experience and what we need as an operator,
evaluate the opportunity and make sure that it works for us.
What we require for our developments for an existing operating
Builders Square store is an approximate parking ratio of about
5/1 based on selling area in the store, not including the
garden shop space. In this particular case that would be
about 550 car parking, which would be effective for us to
operate our business. The reason I say not entirely the
garden shop area, and it is a little bit of a misnomer saying
that we have 140,000 square feet plus of selling area because
a good portion of the garden shop is devoted to the storage of
materials and not the sale of materials. Presumably you do
not generate traffic associated with storage to the same
degree that you generate it with the sale of materials.
13558
The other important area that we look at in any site plan and
layout to make sure parking is effective is what is the really
effective parking because you can have parking spaces in the
back of the building and as you correctly pointed out how far
a customer has to walk is very important in evaluating if the
parking is effective. In this case, if you look at the bulk
of the parking that is available at this store, we have about
340 parking spaces right at the front door of the building.
As you correctly pointed out Mr. Commissioner we have parking
to the north of the parking lot. What we would typically do
is designate that as employee parking and have the employe
from both our existing store as well as the adjacent retail
park at this end so customers would have it more convenient to
come to the store, and this would really serve as overflow
parking, sort of a last resort parking for customers coming
in. So in our view of our operation we believe the parking
here is effective. Further, what we also look at is when
there is a retail development with more than one store
involved, we look to see whether parking patterns of the
retail tenant that we are adjoining are complimentary with us
in evaluating the parking needs. In our case, getting to your
earlier question of where we have most effective parking, when
parking is most used, we are an early morning user for parking
and we are a weekend user for parking and to some degree we
are a user for parking in the hours of 4:00 to 6:00 when
people get home from work. Drug stores typically have a
different operating pattern of when they use cars and parking.
So we believe our store here, along with a proposed retail
store which presumably would be a drug store, would have a
complimentary parking arrangement with us.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have data that we could see in regards to all your
hours that you are open, what percent of sales are at nine in
the morning, ten o'clock, etc.?
Mr. Boyer: What we would be able to provide you with is comparable stores
where we have the penetration of traffic because we track hour
by hour if somebody rings up a sale, when that traffic might
be.
Mr. Alanskas: Because of the problem you have with traffic I ask in regards
to how far a customer would have to walk for a reason because
when you go to the furthest northern point of your property
that you are showing for parking, just past that area there
is a large parcel of land now existing as a service mall and I
don't think it's 20% occupied now. It is vacant. I was just
thinking if you could get that property also and shift your
store to the north, it might solve a lot of problems because
you will have additional parking and take away a deficiency if
you could get that property. I don't know if it is feasible
but it is there and it is not being used.
Mr. Boyer: I think the problem with that is that parking is not really
13559
contiguous to the development back here and if somebody
parking a car here wants to buy a sink or a water faucet or a
water heater, they have to need it very badly to park the car
down here, bring it down here and deal with getting to the
store.
Mr. Alanskas: I think you could get more parking on the Plymouth Road area.
Mr. Boyer: I think we have looked at some of those alternatives and they
are difficult to implement. The other issue here is strictly
the cost of buying an existing shopping center, knocking it
dawn, buying adjacent land, then building a store out here.
At some point it just doesn't become feasible.
Mr. Alanskas: Looking at the plan right now I think it needs a lot of work
because of the big deficiency in parking.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is this 5/1 that you had?
Mr. Boyer: Our internal requirements, based on our operating needs as a
company with over 180 stores, suggest that when a developer
presents a site to us and we determine whether or not it is
feasible, we look to make sure it has approximately 5/1000
square feet of parking spaces per the building area. So in
the case where you have 110,000 square feet of retail facility
there, we would look for about 550 cars and parking to service
that building.
Mr. Piercecchi: But as Bob pointed out you have another 30,000 sq. ft. That
puts you up to about 700 spaces.
Mr. Boyer: We don't count the sites at the garden shop because of the
seasonal nature of the business, but also because only about
10,000 square feet of the garden shop is really devoted to
selling plant materials. The rest is really dealing with
storage.
Mr. Piercecchi: Even with that it is 120,000 sq. ft. and 600 spaces.
Mr. Boyer: That is right. We are 555 parking spaces here. That is just
a rule of thumb. We will take a look at that and make
adjustments accordingly.
Mr. Engebretson: The Builders Square II type format, is that a higher volume
store than the existing Builders Square store?
Mr. Boyer: It is a higher volume store with a higher ticket volume. In
other words, the average purchase will be greater than the old
format, which is more of a warehouse/home improvement store.
The Builders Square II store, which we are constructing here
and constructing all over the Detroit area, is really a home
improvement department store and as such, instead of going in
13560
and buying a piece of lumber, which we certainly have
available, we are hoping you are coming in and buying a Kohler
faucet or a customized kitchen, which we will install for you.
Mr. Engebretson: I have other questions but I am going to defer for a moment to
allow Mr. Thomas to have the floor.
Farl Thomas, R&D Management Corp. , 27716 West Seven Mile, Livonia: I talked to
you people when this first started about six months ago. I
think you are in agreement, all you people on this board, it
will be a wonderful thing to see that corner cleaned up and a
new center with the design that they are proposing. I know
you have ordinances to enforce, and at the study session a
week ago I understand that two of your big concerns were
raised, number one Firestone and number two Perry Drugs.
Nobody has really pursued this for the future at this point,
and I just found this out last Friday, and I have information
in the file, Firestone is with us on a month-to-month right
now, which I think would be a big plus for us to go further in
discussion with officials of the City, the possibility of them
being moved out, which I think would make a big difference in
the parking and the landscaping. We don't know yet where we
are with Perry. There have been no discussions yet whether
they want to move. They may want to move out of the site.
That is open right now. If it could materialize with the
possibility that we get Firestone out and maybe put Perry
Drugs at that site, I think it could be viable.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Thomas how long do you think it will be before you can
'o"' determine whether or not those opportunities might
materialize?
Mr. Thomas: I would say within a week to ten days.
Mr. Engebretson: I am very happy that you came down and shared that information
with us. Now I would like to go back to the Builders Square
folks and ask them a couple of questions. First I would like
to ask Mr. Nagy if the Builders Square just down the street,
is that in compliance with the parking ordinance?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it is.
Mr. Engebretson: With that said, I would just like to point out that I think
the City's ordinance dealing with parking requirements might
be more accurate in terms of reality than the perceived notion
that Builders Square has, and I say that because I have gone
to that Builders Square store on the weekend and I have found
it very difficult to find a parking space there even in spite
of the fact that the parking is in accordance with the City's
requirements, which are quite a bit more rigid than the
Builders Square standards.
13561
Mr. Simons: Well I hope it continues because that means we are doing a lot
of business over there.
Mr. Engebretson: To be honest with you it has discouraged me from going there
on the weekends but happily, being among the retired folks of
the world, I am able to go there during the week now. It is a
nice store but it is an aggravation on the weekend.
Mr. Simons: It is our experience, maybe you have encountered some peak
periods of time there, that the parking spaces further most
from the front door will not be used in 98% of the time and
maybe you have been there the other 2% of the time.
Mr. EngPhretson: I would also be interested in asking the architect how close
the truck well will be from the nearest home.
Mr. Boyer: Approximately 150 feet.
Mr. Engebretson: Haw many trucks will that truck well accommodate at one time?
Mr. Boyer: Two.
Mr. Engebretson: How many trucks would you except to accommodate during the
course of a typical day?
Mr. Simons: It is going to vary obviously depending upon the season, etc.
There is also the volume of the store, but we are not a
significant user of trucks. I would suggest, depending on the
day, you may get six to seven trucks through the course of a
day.
Mr. Engebretson: Presumably these would be tractor/trailers.
Mr. Simons: Some might. Some might be step vans depending on what
products are being delivered. There are also, at least to the
nursery area, many deliveries will be delivered to the front
of the store near the nursery or the side of the store so not
necessarily to the truck well area. In other words a semi
truck full of shrubbery, for example, might pull up to the
side where there is a gate and a couple of forklifts would
help unload so you wouldn't have all the truck traffic at the
back. Most of it, however, would be there.
Mr. Engebretson: How long does it take to take delivery from one of these
tractor/trailers. How long are they typically at that dock?
Mr. Simons: An educated guess would be less than an hour. I would say
half an hour would be more likely than an hour.
Mr. Engebretson: Assuming these are over the road tractor/trailers I would
imagine they would be powered by diesel engines, which tend to
be left on, especially during the winter, as these trucks are
being unloaded. Would you agree with me?
13562
Mr. Simons: I don't know how many are diesel and how many aren't but
obviously some are going to be diesel trucks.
Mr. Engebretson: My concern is leading to what kind of noise and odor pollution
are we inflicting on those neighbors and at what times of day
is that going to occur and at what frequency? Particularly
considering the fact that the building is deficient in terms
of the setback. It is a very poor location to have your
receiving area as it pertains to those neighbors. If they are
not concerned about it, I guess I shouldn't be but it would
seem to me that should be a point of concern, but I see the
way the building is oriented you really don't have any choice.
Mr. Simons: I think that is accurate but please understand right now you
have 75,000 square feet of a number of different stores there
now that probably get more deliveries from even the same size
trucks that we may get as well as smaller trucks assuming that
shopping center was leased out.
Mr. Engghretson: That is an assumption that is pretty far stretched considering
the testimony we heard earlier.
Mr. McCann: I wanted to just follow up on Jack's question. One of the
things, the orientation of the existing building does not put
it in people's back yards. With this your trucks are going to
be backing up there. Do you accept any nighttime deliveries?
Do they do any nighttime stocking with these trucks?
Mr. Simons: Typically not.
Mr. McCann: You wouldn't have a problem putting that into your approval
that there would be no deliveries before 7:00 a.m. or after
7:00 p.m. at night?
Mr. Simons: No I don't think we would have a problem with that.
Mr. Piercecchi: The facility that you currently have on Plymouth Road, will
that terminate when this one comes on stream?
Mr. Simons: Let me also give you a little bit of comfort. That facility
is already leased. A lease is already at our company
headquarters waiting to be executed for a new retailer coming
to the Livonia area.
Mrs. Blomberg: Mr. Nagy or Mr. Shane, could you tell me at HQ about a mile
away, how many parking deficiencies they have?
Mr. Shane: None.
Mr. Nagy: HQ did not have any parking deficiencies when the restaurant
was proposed. However, when the China Coast restaurant was
proposed, a deficiency was created and they were granted a 40
unit parking deficiency to share the parking lot for the
restaurant but HQ itself had no deficiencies either with
respect to parking or landscaping.
13563
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy I had understood that when the restaurant was
proposed, the other tenant there was concerned about the
parking flowing over into their property and, in fact, filed a
`.r. lawsuit.
Mr. Nagy: That is true. HQ did object to that and it is my
understanding that China Coast has now reevaluated their plans
and will now come in with a smaller size restaurant. The
official record will show that an appeal was taken to the
Zoning Board.
Mr. Engebretson: So the HQ experience with the ordinance, as it pertains to
parking, is probably compatible with their needs and the fact
they took that action would indicate they feel quite strongly
about it.
Mr. Nagy: Yes I would agree.
Mr. Engehretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone there
wishing to address the issue.
Kim Eller, 12025 Haller: I live behind Auto World. I have several concerns for
this. I have talked to some neighbors and they feel similar to
this. First of all, I wonder if it is economically sound not
only as a resident but for the City of Livonia. One of our
neighbors is presently moving and she is getting a lot of
questions from prospective purchasers in terms of all the
commercial property around us. We are already dealing with GM
and Fords and the Auto World, which was supposed to be this
ti"41. big booming business. As you pointed out earlier it is more
vacant than occupied. As a retail I wonder if it is also
economically sound having Handy Andy, HQ and now Home Depot
will be within 1 1/2 miles of this new Builders Square. Is
there really a need for another one that close? As I said,
with the Auto World the Planning Commission thought that would
be really good. Now it is vacant. I don't think it is
drawing that much revenue for the City. I would be concerned
about that. I wonder if Mirldlebelt can withstand the traffic
flow. Right now that area is horrendous. I wish I would have
known what I know now when we moved in. I avoid that area at
all costs if at all possible. Between Plymouth and I-96,
between the mall, Fords, GM, HQ, Handy Andy, Ladbroke, it is a
total disaster. I would invite the Commissioners to go and
park at HQ or Handy Andy, or just try to drive down and get
into I-96. Either you are avoiding the traffic shooting in
and out of the hardware stores or people cutting across trying
to get access to the expressway. The Fire Department,
sometimes I wonder if it is safe for them to get out because
the traffic is atrocious. With the mall at Plymouth Road we
are always dealing with traffic there especially now that they
have increased their business there and the theater. The
traffic flow has definitely increased from that too. It is
o]Gt
13564
very hazardous. I would like to know what the statistics are
in terms of accidents in that general area too. I think that
would be something to look into. We already have the semi
Noma. trucks, the employees, the consumers, the traffic conditions.
Like I said it it not only dangerous, it is confusing, it is
congested. I can't tell you how many times I have almost
gotten into accidents. People that want to come out of HQ, it
is like well it looks like it might be clear, I am going to go
and hope they stop. I have had to stop many times and I have
two young children in the car with me. I was coming here
tonight and I won't travel that route. I will go dawn to
either Merriman or Farmington. I won't take Inkster any more.
That is under construction. It is just not safe. You always
have to avoid going in and out and I think that should be
looked into. I also avoid using Livonia retail businesses. I
like to shop at Farmer Jacks and Krogers, which is down
Middlebelt off Five Mile Road. I won't go there. I will go
down to Garden City, maybe hit Danny's or something like that.
I will not travel that road because it is not safe. I can't
get through it. I like to shop at Livonia Mall. I won't do
that any more either. I haven't been there in a long time.
Pollution, as you mentioned the noise. I am concerned about
that. We already deal with the semi trucks from GM and I knew
this when we moved in but I worry about more of the noise. We
have lost a lot of wildlife in the area. I constantly deal
with litter in my backyard and when we had Auto World put in I
was told the greenbelt would take care of that. Well the
greenbelt did nothing but take out trccc and didn't replace
them. Now we have a weed-infested greenbelt that gets watered
`"""or so the weeds grow great and it is covered with litter. Come
and look at it. The litter that doesn't get caught in the
wall or fence of GM ends up in our yard. Every day I go out
and I pick up at least one to two bags of litter. Where it
all is coming from I don't know. The air pollution I am
concerned about with the fumes from the trucks. I have
already had to deal with Auto World looking out fium the patio
looking at a pile of old tires from Auto World. I always have
to look at the trash that is being blown in my backyard. That
is very distressing to me. We try to keep up our house and it
is very discouraging. I wonder if there is going to be any
toxic or hazardous waste that is going to be at that area and
if there is, how will they dispose of it. I would like to
invite the Planning Commission to come to my house any time
and look at the trash that collects in my yard every day. I
would like the traffic to be looked at. That is a terrible
place. Fortunately, it took several years but we finally got
the left turn lane at Plymouth and Middlebelt. Prior to that
there were accidents constantly. There is a middle school
that is just off Middlebelt and West Chicago. We do not have
a bus system from where I live so our children have to walk
there. I am concerned about that. I am also concerned about
the Fire Department. I worry what is the arrival time the
13565
Fire Department has had in terms of getting to an emergency
situation because of the traffic. I like the idea of progress
but to me there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed
'41111. before it is approved.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I think she certainly brought to our attention the
point that we should ask the Inspection Department to go out
and visit that site at their first opportunity and it would be
my request that we have a report back at our next meeting.
Mr. Simons: Certainly we are very sensitive to the concerns of the
neighbors in the area but just two points to draw attention
to. One is we are not new to that particular neighborhood.
We are really relocating an existing facility that is one
quarter of a mile away down to the intersection at the corner
so obviously we are not adding, hopefully, any additional
congestion to the area. Further we also had that experience
of being an operator within the community and in that local
community to understand exactly what the impact of competition
is on our business. Further, with regards to the neighbors in
the back of the facility, there exists presently today and I
assume with any redevelopment of the corner, there exists a
fencing structure that I believe is 8 to 10 feet high today.
So in terms of privacy and really segregating this from the
community so it is not a visible impairment, I think that
certain things can be done in that area to improve the
aesthetics.
Mr. Boyer: The only thing I would add is the opportunity exists this
evening, based on whatever motion is made, based on the
comments Mr. Thomas made concerning Firestone and possibly
Perry Drugs that it might give us an opportunity to work with
staff about possibly making some amendments to the site plan
should the Planning Commission table this this evening instead
of an outright denial. I would just like to offer that.
Mr. Engebretson: I think you have the picture pretty clear.
Mr. McCann: I disagree with you that it is just simply moving one building
to another one. You have already said you have the other
building leased out so that is not going to be a vacant
building. We are gaining a major new tenant to that section
of town however we look at this. I do like the idea of what
you are telling us about a Builders Square II but backing up
100 feet to someone's home scares me. I picture somebody
backing a semi trailer at seven o'clock in the morning to my
home and it is a little scary. Right now the trucks are
backing into the rear of the building but there is quite a
distance between the trucks and the homes because of the way
the building is situated. I think there is good news that
Firestone is possibly moving. In the meantime I am going to
ask for a tabling resolution. For me personally I would like
13566
to see Firestone move, if there is a good possibility of this,
but I would also like to have the developers consider maybe
reorientating the building, trying to do something to
,4111. alleviate some of that noise the traffic would produce going
into the backyards of these people since we don't have the
sufficient setbacks. It is a real problem, therefore, I would
make a tabling resolution to the next available meeting.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-2-21 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-133-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
July 26, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-6-2-21
by Gibraltar Construction Group requesting waiver use approval to
construct a Builders Square store on property located on the Past
side of Middlebelt Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 94-6-2-21 until the study
meeting of August 9, 1994.
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 Preliminary Plat
approval for Oakcrest Villas Subdivision proposed to be located
north of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt and Louise in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they
have no objections to this proposal. We have also received a
letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objections
to this development. Also in our file is a letter from the
Parks & Recreation Division stating they find no problems or
discrepancies that will be caused by this development. We
also have in our file a letter from the Engineering Department
stating their department has no objections to this proposed
preliminary plat. We have also received a note from Tom and
Samantha Madhaven stating they are opposed to developing new
plats in Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
David Gerish: I am with Gerish Building Company, 9450 South Main Street,
#105, Plymouth: We are proposing to build a 19 lot
subdivision with approximately 60 to 65 x 120 to 140 foot
lots.
13567
Mr. Engebretson: Would these homes be developed to be compatible with the
existing homes in that area?
Mr. Gerish: Yes sir.
Mr. Engehretson: What kind of homes do you plan to build there sir?
Mr. Gerish: Colonials and Cape Cods about 1800 to 2200 square feet.
Mr. Engebretson: Tell us about the percentage of brick to siding.
Mr. Gerish: Full brick fronts, probably brick to the belt line of the
first floor on three sides. The rest would be vinyl siding.
Mr. Engebretson: So three sides would be vinyl on the top and the front would
be full brick?
Mr. Gerish: In most cases.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have any rendering of the planned elevations?
Mr. Gerish: We are working with the architect now.
Mr. Engebretson: Tonight we are just dealing with the platting of the property,
the laying out of the lots, etc. We will have another
opportunity, I trust, to get further into this.
Mr. Nagy: At the final plat you will receive more information about what
ti.• kind of houses they might be, etc.
Mr. Engebretson: If this were approved, we would have the opportunity at that
time to delay it until that information is available.
Mr. Nagy: They are only platting the property. There is no guarantee,
in fact, that they intend to build. I think they intend to
build but you understand builders can sell the property to
other builders.
Mr. Gerish: We will be building on the property.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against the proposal.
John Paluchniak, 17435 Brookview Dr. : A number of the questions that I have
probably pertain to some of the details that we are not given
today. If any construction starts, we have 35 children that
live on Brookview Drive and Louise near the top, 18 of which
are under 8 years old. We would like to have the road closed,
Brookview Drive, where it is closed presently, so construction
would not come through on our newly paved roads. One of the
problems would be coming through where the children are and
where they play.
13568
Water pressure, we heard some things about water pressure. We
didn't know what was going to happen with our water pressure
back there with the water line and the fact that Louise has an
old water line running through there.
A lot of the subs in the area have cul-de-sacs for turnarounds
so when you are dealing with traffic, especially the
construction traffic, there is going to be pressure by some of
those people to want to use Brookview Drive and we have Louise
finally paved and Brookview Drive paved and these heavy pieces
of equipment could cause damage on our new blacktop and if it
wasn't a T-turn but a cul-de-sac turn at the end over there,
they would be able to extend Bobrich and turn around on
Bobrich and come out the other end.
We were hoping that the price of the existing homes would be
compatible with the new ones that we live in on Louise and
Brookview Drive so that this would not be a handicap to the
values that we have and the dollars wrapped up in the program.
The noise from the trucks and the roads I had mentioned, so if
the builder could be bonded so if there was damage to these
roads, particularly Louise and Brookview Drive that would be
used over here, it would be guaranteed that any damages would
be taken care of.
There is a treeline presently at the back end of the property
where it adjoins the top. We are trying to save as many trccs
'040111. beautiful
possible. That is a heavily treed area. It looks
beautiful and that is one of the biggest pine trees, I
believe, in the state of Michigan at the back end of that
property and it is probably going to fall right in the
basement line of somebody's home. I hope not.
When it comes to dealing with the sewers, they have to put the
road through because that is an extension of Bobrich through
the center there and the sewer work and sane of this other
work is going to get quite messy and with all the children
that we have over there we have to have a traffic pattern and
also ways to keep the mud minimized. They are going to have
to use the lower section of Louise but we would like to keep
that blocked off of Brookview Drive at the top there so the
construction crews can't cheat and come around and dirty up
some extra streets in the process of building.
Also dumpsters on the construction site so we don't have this
mess blowing around the area, and a port-a-john for the
employees that are working over there so the kinds of messes
that can develop don't develop.
I am glad to see they were not condominiums but these are
single family dwellings that we are talking about. Also I
13569
would like to make sure we have a name or a liaison for
complaints as this project gets under way so we can deal
constructively if some people aren't following the procedures
'tray that would need to be done so we can keep everyone safe and
healthy.
The other item is sidewalks. I don't believe sidewalks were
mentioned but I understand that sidewalks would be part of
this construction so that would be in keeping with the
sidewalks we now have in the area.
Mr. Engebretson: Let me address a couple of your points of concern. Regarding
Brookview, it is not uncommon in situations like this to, in
fact, block construction traffic from Road A, B or C and
direct it all toward another road that might be more suitable,
and that the bonding that you referred, I believe, John
correct me if I am wrong, it is standard practice that if
during the construction of your subdivision or this
subdivision, if that equipment breaks up a street, there is
bonding there to repair it.
Regarding the water pressure, all of us in the northern area
of Livonia, maybe throughout Livonia, but especially at the
north end, have been troubled with water pressure in recent
years, and you are well aware of all the reasons behind that.
You are probably also aware by reading the Livonia Observer
that the City recently entered into an agreement with the
State to develop an ordinance that would enforce odd/even
`... watering during certain periods, which would then allow the
City to have additional water taps available so that we could
have additional development of this type which has been on
hold for the past number of years, five years approximately.
We don't know what impact that is going to have but we believe
it is going to be favorable.
Regarding the pricing of the homes, I think we have heard,
even though this is not the place to get commitments, I
believe we have heard that they are going to be compatible to
the other homes in the area and it certainly would be out of
character for any developer to come in and do otherwise.
As far as the trees and the tree line there, unfortunately
sometimes some trccs have to be cut down. The only way to
really guarantee that doesn't happen is to buy the property
and not cut them down. Most developers are encouraged and, in
fact, do make every effort to save as many trees as possible
because basically the site is more salable, more desirable and
it is rare, I can only recall one instance where a developer
came in and really just mowed down every tree on every square
inch of the site in spite of the fact he had promised not to
do that.
13570
Regarding the sewers, I don't know if we are really in a
position to comment on that issue here tonight but that issue
would be worked out by the Engineering Department as this goes
through the process. This initiates those kinds of things.
44111.
Finally, regarding port-a-johns and complaints, I think the
developer certainly is obligated to provide proper conditions
to do this development as was the case when your subdivision
was developed and if that was not the case, our Inspection
Department is pretty tough and they are prepared to handle
citizens complaints when any business or a resident for that
matter doesn't comply with the ordinance. As you heard
earlier tonight, we referred the matter of a complaint from a
lady in the audience to the Inspection Department, and you can
be sure they will be out there in the next day or so and if it
is appropriate, violations will be given and it will be
required that they remedy those violations quickly, and if
they aren't, they go to District Court, and that always gets
their attention.
I hope I have covered your points. I don't know that you
necessarily find all those comments to be completely
satisfactory, however, this is the beginning of the process.
There will be final plat approval where there will be a lot
more information available, including Engineering information,
the proposed construction plans, etc. and hopefully by that
time we will have all of this sorted out to your satisfaction.
William Smiddy, 17220 Louise: I am south of the proposed development. I have
had quite a few concerns. They were addressed by this
gentleman previous to me. A couple of concerns would be the
hours of the construction. There are going to be a lot of
trucks travelling down the roads. I understand you have to do
it. You can't stop development but we would like to work with
the developer to see if he can limit or adjust his hours so it
is not going to shake everybody out of their beds or destroy
the neighborhood. My main concern is the traffic. I am
very concerned and surprised that the Traffic Bureau would
respond that there would not be additional traffic. There is
a tremendous burden on that road right now with the new sub at
the end of it. It is almost like a speedway on that road at
this point, and to develop it further without addressing those
problems I think would be a detriment not only to the
neighborhood but to the children in the area. We clock people
going 45-50 m.p.h. and we have contacted the Police Department
several times and have been told they are too busy. I find
that very disturbing. It is an up and coming neighborhood.
There are a lot of small children and there have been animals
already killed on the road. I would hate to see something
13571
happen to one of the children. My main concern, and I hope it
is addressed, is that we get the appropriate stop signs and if
we do have some calls in the area because people are in a rush
to get to work in the morning, that we get those things taken
care of.
Mr. Engebretson: I suggest sir that you might want to register your concerns
with the Traffic Commission and the Police Department. The
Police Chief has told me that when they have complaints, such
as you just made, and they put some heavy enforcement in there
they find the mass majority of the people they ticket live
within blocks of the site, so you are really talking about
your own neighbors. It is regrettable but if there are
solutions that can come about with traffic control such as
stop signs, then the proper place would be to take it to the
City Traffic Commission and start the process going there.
Concerning the construction hours, I was just wondering when
your subdivision was built. Were you part of a new
subdivision?
Mr. Smiddy: No I was part of the old subdivision.
Mr. Engebretson: Well we all sometimes suffer through some disruption when
development goes on in a neighborhood. I would just like to
point out that I live in an area where there was a large empty
space of land which everyone in the neighborhood enjoyed. I
want you to know I voted for the rezoning and several hundred
homes to be built right down the street and it certainly added
a lot of traffic down my street. As the President of the
Council Joe Taylor has said on one or more occasions "The real
*vim. problems of Livonia occurred when I moved here". I guess he
was just trying to make the point that we all seem to be very
satisfied with things the way they are but the next person
that moves to town is going to create a crisis. Not to
trivialize the point of concern you made but this is something
that we all have to learn to live with. It usually works out
pretty well but if it doesn't, there are ways to get relief.
The Police Department, I am sure, would not ignore a request
that some enforcement be stepped up in that area. They have
this little trailer they park on streets where people have a
tendency to speed to remind them of the speed limit. Usually
several days later there is a patrol car there writing
tickets.
Mr. Smiddy: I hate to have that happen. It is more just signals and I
think this is not the proper format to bring up stop signs but
that is a definite issue that I am really concerned with.
Mr. EngPhretson: We value your comments and we were trying to give you some
direction as to how you might address them.
Mark Tuttle, 17441 Brookview Drive: I have two issues that I would like to
bring up. I basically agree with the two gentlemen before me.
I am one of the parents with three young children under 7
13572
along with the rest of these people back there in the middle.
One of our major concerns since you are going to approve the
planning of the lots here is the south street where it T's
there, if you look at the subdivision at the area there are
84•• cul-de-sacs, there are turnarounds around the entire area that
we live in. With all the children we are very concerned that
since that street T's there, that people will go up Louise all
the way to Brookview Drive and come around. Where if you
could make that a rounded area at the bottom of that T,
cul-de-sac it, people will be less likely to go up Brookview
and use our street and our children will be in less danger.
Mr. Engebretson: I am not sure how a cul-de-sac versus a T changes anything.
Mr. Tuttle: In the initial construction it will be even worse because
people will come up Louise to Brookview, they will not be able
to turn their vehicles around. If they had a rounded
cul-de-sac there, they could come in at Bobrich, drop their
stuff off, make the turnaround and go right back out Bobrich
and you don't have any extra traffic going up to Brookview
Drive.
Mr. Engehretson: Are you referring to the bottom of the T? You can see what is
happening here is there is a likelihood that these homeowners
on Louise that have property to the rear there could possibly
sell off part of their property and accommodate a couple of
homes back there. But a cul-de-sac versus just a dead flared
off street I don't think that really changes anything with
regard to the traffic flow. Say that again.
``.
Mr. Tuttle: As I said the people come up Louise all the way to Brookview
Drive, they will then come down Brookview Drive to Bobrich and
then they will go out Bobrich back to Louise. If you had a
cul-de-sac or a rounded area, they would come up Louise and
they would turn right on Bobrich, they will be able to then
make a circle around Bobrich and never ever come up Brookview
Drive and we wouldn't have to worry about the extra traffic
coming our way.
Mr. Engehretson: So you are talking about a T at the top not at the bottom.
Mr. Nagy: The very reason why Brookview Drive was dead ended and
barricaded was to facilitate the development of the property
to the south. The thinking there is to provide continuity of
development, looking at the many slender pieces that were
platted early on. The thought was by providing a road back
there it would facilitate the logical assembling of that
property and provide for more comprehensive development of
that area. This plan that we see tonight is evidence of that
and it was part of the early planning to provide for the
development of that property. There is no room to cul-de-sac
that property without having a subdivider subdivide that and
13573
put that cul-de-sac in. What we really see is a cul-de-sac
probably coming through the south of the present development.
From a planning standpoint it makes more sense to coordinate
all those streets and to have one logical development plan for
the area.
Mr. Tuttle: We understand his point of view so I guess our next concern is
in the initial building phase, while the construction is
taking place, we would request wholeheartedly that that street
not be open at Brookview Drive until all the construction is
done. That way our children are safe.
Mr. Nagy: We can accommodate that.
Mr. Engebretson: That is a commonplace action and we can assure you that if
this is successful, that would be done.
Mr. Tuttle: All of our yards in the neighborhood there are no fences, is
this part of this tonight or is that at the later planning?
Mr. Engebretson: That would not be appropriate in my mind at either this
meeting or the next meeting. Isn't that more a subdivision
type of covenant John?
Mr. Nagy: That would be the covenant agreements that would be provided
for the subdivision area. They would deal with that in their
requirements. I don't know if the proprietor has gone that
far yet or not.
'`. Liz Rasche: I live on Louise. My husband's and my concern is number 1 for
the better part of the year after moving into our home, there
was no paving and as you said earlier, you answered one of the
questions, the builder will be bonded if the street is torn
up. Is that correct?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes Ma'am.
Ms. Rasche: The other concern, traffic is horrible on my street. My
husband almost got run over cutting the grass one day next to
the street. There has to be something done. I know this is
probably not the appropriate place but again there is a
traffic problem on that street. The other concern is the
water mains. We have had five water main breaks in four
years. It is an old main. With the new part being built it
will put more pressure on that water main.
Mr. Engebretson: The Engineering Department will be giving a report on that by
the time this comes to final plat. This is just preliminary.
This gets the action started so to speak. A11 of those
questions will be answered at that time. This is what
launches the whole program. If this is approved, it doesn't
make it will happen. Then there will be final plat approval
at which time all these issues will be sorted out and dealt
with.
13574
Jim Cornish: I live right on the corner of Bobrich and Louise and everybody
that spoke before me really raised my concerns. One thing,
after they put this new subdivision in, we have had many, many
power failures. In the last year this seems to have cleared
'fts. up but adding another 20 homes I don't know if it will put any
more pressure on it. When do you think they would start the
construction?
Mr. Engebretson: The process takes some time and I am going to rely on Mr. Nagy
to give an estimate. If everything were to go smoothly Mr.
Nagy, at what point would the developer likely be in a
position to break ground?
Mr. Nagy: Very optimistically he might be able to do it sometime in the
latter part of November. It will take at least four months,
approximately more.
Mr. Engebretson: More likely next spring.
Mr. Nagy: Perhaps there could be some site clearance. I don't see any
pavement going in this year.
Mr. Cornish: The other concern is we had to pay for the road that went in
on Louise. We didn't really want the road but that's the way
it was, progress. I want to make sure the builder this time,
before they start, will take care of the road if it collapses
on them.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't know how much more assurance we can give you than we
`f.y already have.
Mary Mackey: I am the daughter of Mrs. Plumley who owns the piece of
property directly south. She has lived on that property for
over 50 years and she has, at this time, chosen not to sell
the back portion of her property although we are requesting at
this time that it appears that there is a T at the end of the
property that backs up to hers and we are requesting that it
stay a T and not become a cul-de-sac there so maybe sometime
dawn the road that road could be extended out to Six Mile or
she may later intend to sell or split herself and not be
landlocked. I understand the other fellow's view on his
children but cul-de-saccing that, after the construction I
don't think people who live in that area probably will not be
going all the way up to Brookview and around to get in.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding that T, Mr. Tuttle's suggestion was to put the
cul-de-sac in at the top of the T and then close off the area
that deals with Brookfield. What we are dealing with here now
is we considered that and we are considering that but as Mr.
Nagy said the logical development and future development of
other land in the area would lead us to conclude that the
proposed layout is the best layout so I guess what I am saying
is your desire is the way it is likely to go.
13575
Ruby Fischer, 17436 Brookview: I want to make a suggestion that the north lots
of the proposed plat be turned north and south and close that
top part of that T and have it go down to Six Mile. You could
still do it but Brookview would stay tranquil and not open to
`4.. other traffic.
Bernard Kruszka, 17448 Brookview: I would like to re-enhance all the concerns
that have been expressed. I would like to say I am concerned
about the type of houses that would be built and the dollar
value. I understand they would have full brick front and I
understand brick on at least part of the two sides. There are
many homes in the neighborhood that are brick on all four
sides. I would also like to ask if this preliminary plat is
approved, can these lots begin to be sold?
Mr. Engebretson: No.
Mr. Kruszka: There seems to be a lot of open issues as far as Engineering
and what happens if some of these lots are sold or the builder
starts building. If you can assure me that cannot happen
until these other things do occur.
Mr. Engebretson: We just did.
Mr. Kruszka: If you could put a cul-de-sac on the top to block that off
that would be better. There are a lot of kids in the
neighborhood. You have to walk to the schools. The
construction traffic, even if it is blocked off, could be a
potential hazard.
Mr. Engebretson: We are going to block construction traffic. I guess, at the
risk of sounding argumentative, I would ask you to consider
what would the City look like if every block ended in a
cul-de-sac? How in the world would we function. How would we
get from one place to another? How would the Fire Department
or any emergency unit respond if they had to go through a maze
of little puzzles? This plan where Brookfield was laid out
the way it is was done with the opportunity to utilize this
other land in the future here. I think we all live with that.
Most people in the audience are living with neighbors for
blocks in all directions with free-flowing traffic. I just
think it is very unlikely that even though Brookfield is going
to be blocked off during construction, it is going to be
opened, as it logically should be, when this is completed.
Mr. Kruszka: I won't be argumentative because I don't personally like
cul-de-sacs but a lot of people do. They think that enhances
the value of their home.
Mark Myers, 17200 Louise: My property backs up to Mrs. Plumley's, the last
remaining strip on Louise. With the 9 site condos coming from
the south and the 19 proposed homes from the north and that
13576
last strip of land back there, I think there could be a little
more efficient use of the land. The way the plan is proposed
right now, things are a little tight in there and if that road
does come through to Six Mile, it will alleviate a lot of
`�•• people's concern. I think if you take that into consideration
it would use that land a little more wisely. That land has
been there for a long time. Mrs. Plumley has owned it for 50
years. I think, as you well know, after everything is said
and done, the Planning Commission would rather see it all
developed at one time and a more efficient use of the land.
Mr. Engebretson: Unfortunately sir that is not always possible. People make a
determination to sell at different points in time. You're
right it would be our desire to develop everything at once but
unfortunately sometimes it doesn't work out that way.
Judy Plumley: My mother owns the land just south of this. I have a
question. Does R-IA mean my mother, if she went to a land
surveyor, she could have a proposal brought to you for a land
split? She could herself own two pieces of property. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nagy: Actually three. She could own the piece that her house is on
and extending the road south of her property she could have
two new vacant lots on the east side and the west side of the
road so she could have two buildable lots plus her existing
home.
Ms. Plumley: Then she would have to make the arrangements for a road to
Come in?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Gerish is this your first endeavor building homes or have
you built homes before and if you have, where?
Mr. Gerish: We have been in business for 37 years. We have built in
Northville, Canton, Farmington. We are building in Canton
and Northville right now.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a new subdivision built in this area close by?
Mr. Gerish: The closest one is either Canton or Farmington.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the name of the subdivision?
Mr. Gerish: The name of the subdivision in Farmington is called Hamlet.
It is south of Ten Mile just east of Orchard Lake Road on the
north side.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat
approval for Oakcrest Villas Subdivision closed.
13577
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-134-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
July 26, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary Plat
approval for Oakcrest Villas Subdivision proposed to be located
north of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt and Louise in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for
Oakcrest Villas Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of
the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations
for the following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat is in compliance with all of the
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance.
2) That no City Department has objected to the approval of the
Preliminary Plat.
3) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the development of the subject parcel in accord with
the developing character of this general area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in
the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the
notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent
of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and
�.• Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the
meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before
it.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a request for
extension of Preliminary Plat approval for Pines of Winfield
Subdivision proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road
and east of Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I understand we have a letter.
Mr. Nagy: Yes we have a letter from Joseph P. Durso, who is in the
audience, referencing the subject petition, Extension of
Approval for "Pines of Winfield" Subdivision" which reads as
follows: "In June 1992, pursuant to resolution 6-392-92 from
the Livonia Planning Commission I received a preliminary plat
approval for the above mentioned subdivision. Due to the
Water moratorium that has been in effect during this time
13578
period, I was unable to proceed forward with the project.
Recently, the City of Livonia has received a preliminary
approval of additional Water taps for use by the City from
Lansing, therefore I am asking the Planning Commission if they
`�► would please allow me an extension of the preliminary approval
of my subdivision in order to proceed for the final approval
from Livonia City Council. If there are any other requirement
needs from your department in order to proceed forward on this
matter, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully yours,
Joseph P. Durso, President, Winfield Development Inc."
Mr. Engebretson: A motion would be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-135-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated July 3, 1994 from Joseph
P. Durso requesting a one-year extension of approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Pines of Winfield Subdivision proposed to be
located south of Seven Mile Road and east of Wayne Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does
hereby grant an extension for a period of one year from the date of
this resolution.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 686th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on June
`r.. 21, 1994.
As there were not enough members present to vote on approval of the minutes,
this matter was put off until the Regular Meeting of August 16, 1994.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revised Building
Elevations in connection with Petition 92-12-2-57 by Handy Andy
Improvement Centers, Inc. for the commercial building located at
13507 Middlebelt Road in Section 26.
Mr. Miller: This is the Handy Andy that is located on the southwest corner
of Schoolcraft and Middlebelt. Right now they have a security
fence around the garden area. The security fence right now is
9 feet 4 inches in height. They are proposing to increase the
height of the security fence around two sides of the garden
area by securing fence posts into the block pillars and then
having fencing that matches the existing fencing. As I said
before it will only be on the side that faces Schoolcraft and
the rear of the garden area. The front elevation which faces
Middlebelt Road will not be altered. It will remain the same
as it is now.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is my understanding that HQ has a 15 foot fence right now
so this would be treating one the same as the other, right?
13579
Mr. Miller: Right.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a report from the Inspection Department
indicating an inspection of the site reveals the following
property maintenance problems: 1. The entire parking lot
should be swept to eliminate the accumulation of loose stones,
litter and debris. 2. There are extensive areas of damaged
asphalt on the south side of the property that will require
resurfacing. 3. The fence enclosures around the a/c units at
the rear of the building have been damaged and need to be
replaced. 4. The weed growth in some of the landscaped beds
and around the foundation of the building should be
eliminated. 5. The pallets stored in the rear are in disarray
and should be straightened up or removed. Subjectively, the
method proposed for increasing the height of the Garden Center
fence has the appearance of a 2 story dog kennel. It is
interesting to note that the petitioner does not propose this
treatment for the storefront side of the Garden Center.
Mr. Ehgebretson: Are there any Handy Andy representatives here?
Michael Watson: I am General Manager of the store at 13507 Middlebelt. The
main reason we are only asking to do two sides is number one
is to keep it looking not like a 2 story dog kennel. The
purpose is to protect the merchandise. Tast year alone we
lost almost a million dollars just in merchandise. Not just
going over the fence but with a combination of theft and going
over the fence, so for security reasons we really find it
necessary. The other issues that the inspector found with the
vow parking lot and the resurfacing, I just want to reassure you
that has already been addressed. We have plans of resurfacing
that starting on the 8th of August, which we do every year, to
take care of a lot of the holes. Other than that, that is
pretty much the main reason to protect our assets.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on your point regarding resurfacing.
You surely don't resurface every year.
Mr. Watson: No we patch it.
Mr. Engehretson: We are talking about resurfacing not patching.
Mr. Watson: The way I read it, unless I read it wrong.
Mr. Ehgebretson: "There are extensive areas of damaged asphalt on the south
side of the property that will require resurfacing."
Mr. Watson: That is correct so I will take care of the area that needs to
be addressed.
Mr. Piercecchi: Does that resurfacing have any relationship to the fencing?
13580
Mr. Engebretson: Not really but it is opportunity to use a little muscle to get
a job done that might not otherwise get done. That is how it
works. We will probably incorporate the Inspection
Department's report into our resolution as a requirement that
`..• each of these issues be dealt with just to add emphasis to the
point. Even if we didn't do that, you would still be required
to deal with these issues. The really logical way to proceed
here is to combine it all together, get the job done. You
have done a great job in the redevelopment of that store and I
hope you are very successful. Now we have just a little bit
of touching up to do. We will seize this opportunity to seek
your cooperation.
Mr. Alanskas: We went by there the other day and your stacking of
merchandise is very high and it looks terrible. Could you
take all that stacking down immediately?
Mr. Watson: Yes absolutely. This time of the year it does not cause a
problem.
Mr. Alanskas: That is not the point. I would like to see it down.
Mr. Watson: Not a problem.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and
unanimously approved, it was
#7-136-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the Revised Building Elevations in
connection with Petition 92-12-2-57 by Handy Andy Improvement
Centers, Inc. for the commercial building located at 13507
Middlebelt Road in Section 26 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 4 dated 7/6/94, as
revised, by Livonia - Handy Andy, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That the content of the Inspection Department letter dated
July 22, 1994 be incorporated as a further requirement to be
complied with in all respects and that this approval is
contingent upon that compliance.
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 Louis C. Peppo for the installation of a satellite
dish antenna for property located at 16723 Comstock Drive in
Section 17.
Mr. Miller: This satellite dish is an existing satellite dish. The
applicant was issued a violation for not getting Planning
13581
Commission approval so he is before you now to get Planning
Commission approval. The satellite dish is 13 feet from the
rear of the house and 10 feet from the south lot line. It is
7 1/2 feet in diameter. It is located on a 6 foot high pole
so the whole antenna is about 9 1/2 feet in height. The site
plan submitted shows that the screening is provided by a 6
foot wooden fence along the south lot line, a 6 foot wooden
fence along the east lot line and along the east lot line he
also shows there are 3 fir trees that are 9 feet in height
that will help screen it from the east lot line. Along the
north lot line he has a 4 foot cyclone fence with some maple
trees in the corner area to help screen that. He also has
submitted consent letters from the residents on the two sides
of him and the rear of his property.
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is patiently waiting. What would you
like to add?
Louis Peppo: Those trees are newly planted there for that purpose. We
actually plan to plant some more to try to shield that a
little more. Those 6 trees would help. We have it in the
corner. We are very conscious in not having it out in the
middle of the yard where the satellite people wanted to put
it. We wanted to think of the neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson: Why didn't you put it closer to the house?
Mr. Peppo: I told them to put it as close as they could.
Mr. Engebretson: Why didn't they if you told them to do that?
Mr. Peppo: I don't know. Those were my instructions to the company to
bring it as close to the house as they could
Mr. Engebretson: The reason I am asking the question is because it appears that
it is going to be very difficult to add additional screening.
Mr. Peppo: I was thinking to add them around the deck closer to the dish
to shield it a little more.
Mr. Engebretson: From whom? From your deck?
Mr. Peppo: From my deck and to shield it from the other homes also.
Mr. Ehgebretson: It is quite visible from the street that runs perpendicular to
Comstock, Mallory.
Mr. Piercecchi: I estimated about 75% of that dish is visible from Mallory,
about 50% from Comstock and 20% from Renwick.
Mr. Engebretson: We don't want to work any hardship on you sir but at the same
time we want to deal with this in a way that if it is
13582
approved, it has the 1Past negative aesthetic impact on the
neighborhood and that would include the view from Mallory. I
am just wondering if you could, as compared to moving the
dish, I wonder if there is room to put some additional
``► arborvitae or something that grows fast there to block the
view from Mallory. In your opinion is there room to do that?
Mr. Peppo: I do business with Harold Thomas Nursery. They are the ones
that have done all the work at my house there, and I can ask
them to come over and see what we can do.
Mr. Engebretson: What you have is very nice. It is well done. I think you
have made a real solid effort to make this have as little
impact as possible but there is a glaring deficiency,
especially from the Mallory side. I understand you have
approval from the immediate neighbors but things change.
People sell their houses and people come in and what might
have been okay with the previous owner might not be okay but
there is no recourse down the road. I know you have stayed
until eleven o'clock and you have been very patient and it
would be nice if you could walk out with this resolved here
tonight but I am hopeful that there might be a resolution to
table this to another meeting to give you an opportunity to
have Harold Thomas come out, and I am sure they can come up
with a solution and at the same time it might be interesting
to find out if the cost to move the dish closer to the house
may be less than the total cost of resolving the problem of
landscaping.
\n. Mr. Peppo: It would still be visible.
Mr. Engebretson: It would but it would give you more land to work with. How do
you feel about that?
Mr. Peppo: That is fine. I am willing to do what is right.
Mr. Engebretson: We got the feeling that you really mean that. We got that
feeling previously and I think you have demonstrated that you
really do mean that and we want to work with you but we are
very concerned about setting bad precedents with these dishes.
Mrs. Blomberg: I think I would like to see it shielded from the front yard
too. That is what I noticed when I drove by the front. It is
very obvious from the front. I really think he has done a
very good job of shielding it but mostly I think it is
shielded from your own site. When you drive by you see it
above your fence. It is nice to have it and I want you to be
able to keep it but I really wouldn't want to live across the
street from it if I were going to buy a new house. You have a
lovely home and I think it is detrimental to your home.
Mr. Alanskas: If you could, and I think you have a right to do so, I would
13583
make a comment to the people that installed your dish that you
had recommended that you wanted it tucked in that corner
because you have a lot of space to do that. I would try to
put the burden on the installer. I would say I want it moved
at no cost. You have nothing to lose by going that way. It
should be tucked in that corner.
Mr. Peppo: I can do that also with Harold Thomas.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to add that I think that is a good point and that
the company that installed your dish, from what I understand,
is very familiar with the requirements we have to the extent
that we ask them when they go through the process of filing
for approval, we ask them to stake the location of the dish.
We negotiate these kinds of issues and we may have an
opportunity to relocate where there is no burden on anyone.
They share some of the responsibility in my opinion, not being
an attorney, but that is my opinion as a lay person. You may
well want to pursue that.
Mr. Peppo: I will.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#7-137-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table Permit Application by Louis C. Peppo for the installation
of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 16723 Comstock
Drive in Section 17 until the study meeting of August 9, 1994.
�r. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Blomberg, Alanskas, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McCann
ABSENT: LaPine, Morrow
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 687th Regular
Meeting & Public Hearings held on July 26, 1994 was adjourned at 11:07 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMbIISSION
a
(;Lf1417 (-
j C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST:
('Yl 1111/614"\
Ja Engebrqtson, Chairman
jg