HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-02-08 13247
MINUTES OF THE 678th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
*4401.
On Tuesday, February 8, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 678th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 60 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Robert Alanskas
Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei
Messrs. H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner I, were
also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
''m. 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: We normally begin with the public hearing section of the agenda
in these formal meetings; however, this evening we are going to
make an exception with a pending item that deals with a matter
concerning the City Zoning Board of Appeals, and the reason that we
are taking this out of order is because they have a meeting
scheduled tonight with a room full of petitioners waiting and
therefore we are going to hear their particular case first so they
can move on and conduct City business. Will Secretary McCann
please call that item.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 93-10-6-6
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #727-93,
and pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended,
to determine whether or not to amend Article XXI of the Zoning Ordinance
so as to reduce the membership of the Zoning Board of Appeals from seven
members to six members plus an additional alternate member, with all
seven members serving on a rotating basis.
13248
Mr. Engebretson: This item has been before us previously at a public hearing and
at that time it was determined that we needed to invite the
Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals to appear to give us a
recommendation as to whether or not this is an appropriate change
in our ordinance, so with that we will recognize Sue Muccino.
"ft. Please for the record give us your name and address and share with
us your thoughts on this proposal.
Susan Muccino, 15854 Blue Skies: I am Chairwoman of the Zoning Board of Appeals
and with me this evening are a few members of the board.
Unfortunately not all members could attend. However, I will be
making a statement on behalf of the entire board. I would like to
begin by giving a brief description of the function of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The ZBA is a quasi-judicial board that is
empowered with the authority to interpret the Zoning Ordinance and
to grant variances where it has been demonstrated that a practical
difficulty or a necessary hardship will occur if the literal use of
the Zoning Ordinance is applied. We also hear appeals whereby a
citizen claims they have been aggrieved by or claims that an error
has been made by any order, directive, decision, or determination
made by any administrative official or other board charged with
enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. The ZBA is the final local
authority on any appeal. If someone disagrees with the decision of
the board, the next avenue of appeal is with the Wayne County
Circuit Court.
Now to the issue at hand. A few years ago the ZBA seemed to be
having a problem with absenteeism. They would meet on Tuesday
evenings and occasionally didn't know whether or not they would
have a full board for the meeting or a partial board. No phone
calls were being made to the secretary in advance of an absence.
Needless to say, it proved to be quite unprofessional and annoying.
Some of the petitioners requested to have their cases postponed
because they wished to present it to a full board or at least to
more than just four or five members of the board. Thus, some cases
did get backed up on the agenda by a few weeks. At this point I
should also state that to conduct business we need a quorum of four
members. To approve an appeal for a variance we also need four
concurring votes. To grant variances from uses of land we need
five votes or 2/3rds of the entire board is necessary. Since that
time a new ZBA has been appointed and these problems have been
solved. All members are required to let the secretary know in
advance of any absences. If there aie any emergencies or last
minute problems, we now have a way of contacting City Hall through
the new automated phone system. In researching the attendance
records of previous boards and the current board, it is apparent
this problem was unique to this particular board.
The Zoning Board of Appeals has discussed this issue in great depth
and has looked for any problems and results that could occur by
changing the format of the ZBA. They have not been able to find
any. By reducing the number to six, it increases the possibility
of ties, which would automatically be a denial. The ability to
break a tie by the Chair would be gone. If the seventh member is
',err
13249
to be an alternate on a rotating basis, then does that mean that
the Chairperson would also be included in this format? If there is
to be a different Chairperson each week or month, then it is our
opinion that not only would there be a lack of leadership but it
would also diminish the continuity and professionalism of the
Nifty board. We have also looked at the cost effectiveness and workload
savings of this change and have not been able to find any savings
there. The seventh member would still have to attend all meetings
and visit each site during the week thereby still receiving the
same amount of compensation. The ZBA secretary would still have to
prepare seven packets weekly and would not be reducing any workload
that she may now have.
After looking at and discussing all these possibilities and
demonstrating that the absenteeism and the caseload backup has been
resolved, it is the opinion of the Zoning Board of Appeals that
this recommendation of changing the number of members from seven to
six with an alternate should be denied. The Zoning Board of
Appeals has served Livonia well for many years in its current
format and is very proud of its record. Thank you very much for
giving me this opportunity to speak.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you indicate other members of the board wish to speak?
Mrs. Muccino: They wanted me to speak on their behalf but if you have any
questions, they will be happy to answer them.
Mr. LaPine: I stated my position very clearly. From my experience on the
board, I don't think it should be changed.
New On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
##2-26-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
30, 1993 on Petition 93-10-6-6 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #727-93, and pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Article XXI of the Zoning Ordinance so as to reduce the membership of
the Zoning Board of Appeals from seven members to six members plus an
additional alternate member, with all seven members serving on a
rotating basis, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 93-10-6-6 be denied for the following
reasons:
1) That there is no need to alter the language of the Zoning Ordinance
in order for the Zoning Board of Appeals to continue to discharge
its duties in an efficient and professional manner.
2) That there is no evidence to support a change in the makeup of the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13250
Mr. Engebretson: We will now move to the public hearing section of the agenda.
Secretary McCann would you please call the first item.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-1-1
by Darlene and Larry Cossin requesting to rezone property located on the
'` east side of Farmington Road between Pickford and Clarita Avenues in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from OS to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is at the podium.
Darlene Cossin, 18536 Farmington Road: We have been trying to sell the house for a
year now. We had an offer and what happened was the people
couldn't get a mortgage because of the way the property was zoned.
We have had the house for sale for a year and haven't been able to
sell it. What happens is if the house were to burn down more than
50%, people wouldn't be able to rebuild so nobody feels real
confident in purchasing it until it is rezoned.
Mr. Engebretson: We understand. What you want to do is get zoning that conforms
to the use.
Mrs. Cossin: Right.
Mr. Tent: Darlene, what is the price of the home? What are you selling it
'`. for?
Mrs. Cossin: I think it is up for $108,500.
Mr. Tent: You do you have a willing buyer for it now?
Mrs. Cossin: No but we have had several lookers and we have a couple of
interested people but they couldn't get the financing.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-1-1-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-27-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
8, 1994 on Petition 94-1-1-1 by Darlene and Larry Cossin requesting to
rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between
Pickford and Clarita Avenues in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from OS
to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 94-1-1-1 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the adjacent residential uses and zoning districts in the
area.
13251
2) That the proposed zoning district is consistent with the existing
residential use of the subject property.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will remove the non-conforming
use status of the existing residential use of the property.
fir.
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 94-1-1-2
by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located west of Newburgh Road
between Plymouth Road and Grantland Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 30 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
if the area in question is to be developed as a residential
subdivision, we offer the following preliminary comments: 1) A
sixty foot wide public right-of-way will be required for access to
Plymouth Road. 2) There are no storm sewer systems readily
available to service the development. Based on the design criteria
for Livonia Drain #22 and Branches, the outlet for the subject site
is currently located near the Plymouth Road-Newburgh Road
intersection. It appears, therefore, that an off-site storm sewer
8140. of approximately 800' along Plymouth Road would be required to
satisfy the storm water needs of the subdivision.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Soave give us your name and address for the record and tell
us what you have in mind here.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What we propose is R-1 zoning. As far as road access
to the property it will be Lot 520. As you know Lot 520 is only 50
feet. We acquired an additional 10 feet from Lot 521. As you can
see the property we want to rezone everything except the south 200
feet. The people that are selling the property plan on staying
there. Lot 520 has a shed on it. We are going to take the shed
down and the area is going to be really improved by the proposed
development. I will answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there going to be 20 lots?
Mr. Soave: Approximately 20 lots. Maybe less.
Mr. Alanskas: What type of homes will you be building?
Mr. Soave: Three bedroom ranches to colonials, from $150,000 on up.
Mr. Alanskas: All brick?
13252
Mr. Soave: Yes all brick.
Mr. LaPine: You heard the letter we received from the Engineering Department
about no storm sewers in that area. How will you handle that?
Now. Mr. Soave: We are exploring a couple different avenues. We talked to the
Wayne County Drain Commission. There may be a sewer on the south
side of Plymouth Road. We don't know for sure if we can tap into
that but if it is available there, we will tap into that Wayne
County drain.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, if there are no storm sewers in that area, how is the
R-9 property, the City property, handling their storm water?
Mr. Shane: There are storm sewers on Newburgh Road. The point is the closest
point to this property would be at the intersection of Newburgh and
Plymouth Roads.
Mr. LaPine: There is no way they can go in the back and hook on to the storm
sewer?
Mr. Shane: All I can do is react to the Engineer's letter, which says they
would have to tap into the storm sewer at the intersection.
Mr. LaPine: That problem would have to be resolved before he began?
Mr. Shane: That is right.
Mr. Tent: I understand this is just a rezoning request at this time. We will
have a shot at the site plan?
`hr.
Mr. Shane: Yes, they will have to produce a preliminary plat for a subdivision
if it is rezoned.
Mr. Tent: Maybe at that time we can go ahead and resolve the sewer problem
and also the 60 foot right-of-way?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal.
Don Vonbuskirk, 37862 Plymouth Road: I live on Lot 529 which is right in that
neighborhood. I believe the public has pretty much spoken with the
rezoning of the 12 acres, which is in the same neighborhood. That
property was recently rezoned from the same RUF to R-1 residential
and everyone had a chance to speak at that time if they were to be
against what Mr. Soave is for and that is the development to R-1
from RUF. I think it is a good idea and it will bring in a lot of
money for the City.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-1-1-2 closed.
13253
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved,
it was
#2-28-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
8, 1994 on Petition 94-1-1-2 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property
located west of Newburgh Road between Plymouth Road and Grantland Avenue
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
94-1-1-2 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan which recommends medium density land use for this
general area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of this general area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses and zoning districts 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 93-12-2-30
by F&M Distributors, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for an SDM
license for an existing store located on the west side of Middlebelt
Ns Road between Schoolcraft and Industrial Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 26.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this 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
the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or
problems were found therefore their department has no objection to
this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
John Broderick: I am a Property Manager for F&M Distributors and I am here to
answer any questions the members may have regarding our
application.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Broderick, you are with F&M Distributors, correct?
Mr. Broderick: That is correct.
'wr
13254
Mr. Tent: Is this the only F&M store that will have an SDM license or do you
have any others in your chain that offer this kind of service?
Mr. Broderick: We have 21 Michigan stores that are currently licensed and selling
beer and wine, all in Michigan. We intend to have all 36 Michigan
`'o' stores licensed. That is our intent.
Mr. Tent: The one on Grand River, does that have an SDM license?
Mr. Broderick: That has a license which was approved by the Michigan Liquor
Control Commission. It currently is pending before the City
Council but I talked to the Fire Marshal today and it will be
approved shortly.
Mr. Alanskas: By having this license, what percent of sales will be from beer and
wine that you don't have now?
Mr. Broderick: It will be less than 10%. Our average inventory for the stores
that are licensed at present, is approximately $50,000 and our
inventory levels in total are approximately $1,500,000 per store so
it is less than 10%.
Mr. Alanskas: So if you did not have this license, you could still succeed and
stay as a drugstore there with your other products
Mr. Broderick: We could succeed but we feel it is an integral part of our overall
customer offering.
Mr. LaPine: Sir, how long has F&M been at that location?
"r► Mr. Broderick: Since 1985.
Mr. LaPine: Since 1985 you have not had a beer and wine license. Is that
correct?
Mr. Broderick: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: What has changed that makes you feel that you need a beer and wine
license now?
Mr. Broderick: It was an overall corporate decision to implement beer and wine
company wide, not only in Michigan. We are planning to go forward
in other states. Initially we started out in a few locations in
Michigan in June. It has worked very well and just as part of the
overall customer program. It is just one more component to offer
the customer. We don't provide any refrigerated beer or wine. We
do not have any liquor. We feel we can buy on a volume basis and
offer it to the customer at a good price.
Mr. LaPine: As Mr. Alanskas pointed out, you can be successful without a beer
and wine license at this location?
Mr. Broderick: I would submit if we were denied it, it would not cause the store
to fail. The store has been up and operating since 1985 and is
13255
doing well. I think, however, from a overall corporate offering it
is an integral part, and to be denied an application at this
particular location where we feel there is no hardship to
surrounding businesses, we feel would be detrimental to the
company.
Mr. LaPine: Let me ask you one other question. Handy Andy recently upgraded
their store outside. Does the same owner own both stores?
Mr. Broderick: The same owner owns the entire shopping center.
Mr. LaPine: Do they have any plans to do any upgrading on the outside of the
F&M Building?
Mr. Broderick: They do not have any imminent plans that I am aware of at this
time.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have anything to add sir?
Mr. Broderick: No, I would just request that we have to date 21 locations that
have been licensed. We have made every effort to comply with both
the City individual jurisdiction laws as well as the State laws and
we have had no problems to date and if the application were
approved, we would make every effort to comply with the City of
Livonia's requirements as well.
Mr. Engebretson: When you say you have had no problems to date, does that mean
there haven't been any police incidents at any of these other
locations?
"New Mr. Broderick: That is correct.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-12-2-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#2-29-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
8, 1994 on Petition 93-12-2-30 by F&M Distributors, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval for an SDM license for an existing store located on
the west side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and Industrial
Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-12-2-30 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 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.
13256
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#f543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
Now
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-2-1
by Gleno's Inc. requesting waiver use approval for an SDM license for a
proposed carry-out delicatessen to be located in an existing building on
the southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Inkster Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic
Bureau stating they have no objections to this proposal. We have
also received a letter from Bill MacDonald of the Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating the property was inspected last fall
during good weather conditions and again last week and the
following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The landscape
'0411m. beds contained a lot of weeds and litter, and will require cleanup
and renovation. 2. There are areas of damaged asphalt that will
require patching, especially in the rear. The entire lot should be
striped. 3. The damaged sections of public sidewalk along Inkster
Rd. should be replaced. 4. The sidewalk adjacent to the building
and the handicapped parking spaces is not depressed to permit
barrier free access from the vehicle to the building entrance.
5. There is some damaged curbing on the west edge of the service
drive that separates this property from the vacant lot to the west.
6. The site plan shows a dumpster in an enclosure behind the
building. The enclosure is not presently there. 7. The existing
signage consists of a pole sign and 2 wall signs on the building.
The sign ordinance does not allow the nonconforming sign on the
east wall or the pole sign to be used by the new tenant. These
signs are required to be removed. I met with Mr. Kashat at the
site last week and discussed the sign problems. He told me that he
would replace the pole sign with a conforming monument sign and
would remove the wall sign from the east wall. The wall sign on
the north wall is okay, but is considerably smaller than the 84
s.q. of sign area that would be permitted on this wall. Mr. Kashat
indicated that he may remove that sign and replace it with a new
and larger sign.
We also received on February 7, 1994 a letter from Gregory
Demopoulos of the law firm of Helmkamp, Ellis, Abraham &
'tlir.r
13257
Demopoulos, and it reads as follows: This office represents
Gleno's Inc. in its Waiver Use Application for an SDM license to
sell packaged beer and wine at its carry-out delicatessen and
convenience store located at 27405 Grand River, Livonia at the
southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Inkster. The business
" .► has existed for the past few weeks and is selling convenience store
goods along with deli sandwiches, pizzas and submarines. The
facility offers no seating for dining in. Further, there is no
sign sponsorship by any beer or pop company for the location, and
no video games will be located at the store.
The principals of Gleno's Inc. have been involved in the
convenience store business for approximately twenty years. They
have never been cited with any liquor violations. The principals
of the business, Iman Kashat and Sam Kashat, husband and wife,
shall be primarily working at this location. The members of the
Planning Commission may recall that this location was formerly Yum
Yum Donuts.
The Petitioner has already executed the lease and has been in
business, with customers asking when they will start selling beer
and wine. Clearly there is a demand for packaged beer and wine at
this location. In fact, consumers expect an operation such as the
Petitioners to carry beer and wine. A review of the immediate area
would reveal that there are no other small businesses located
within a half mile or even more that sell packaged beer and wine in
Livonia.
The Petitioner respectfully requests that the Planning Commission
grant a favorable recommendation to the City Council for permission
New to obtain an SDM license from the state of Michigan.
If any members of the Planning Commission have any concerns, please
do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Mr. Engebretson: I see the gentleman is at the podium.
Gregory Demopoulos: I would like to make one correction to the letter that I sent.
The business was being remodeled over the last few weeks and
customers have been stopping by and asking questions. I am here to
answer any questions you may have. As you may recall it was a Yum
Yum Donut Store that has been out of business since August of 1993.
What is proposed here is a delicatessen/convenience store that
really depends upon a beer and wine license in order to service
customers and to prosper. There have been some difficulties
obviously with the Yum Yum Donuts going out of business. We feel
if an SDM license is granted we can make all the improvements the
Building Inspector requires and bring the property into a
respectable looking condition and an asset to the City of Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: Could you be more specific sir as to your reference to the
Building Inspector's letter. Was that a firm commitment to deal
with each of those issues or was that an intent to consider them?
13258
Mr. Demopoulos: Obviously the sign ordinance would have to be complied with. If
the parking lot needs to be paved and striped, it will be. Any
violations obviously would have to be corrected.
Mr. Alanskas: What percent would be derived from your beer and wine sales?
Mr. Demopoulos: Approximately 40% to 50%.
Mr. Alanskas: What time of day is you busiest influx of traffic?
Mr. Demopoulos: During lunch time and after work hours.
Mr. Alanskas: What hours will you be open?
Mr. Demopoulos: Mr. Kashat could answer that question.
Iman Kashat, 29461 Moran, Farmington Hills, 48336: We are going to be open
around 6:00 a.m. to serve donuts and coffee for people going to
work and delicatessen for the lunchtime and we depend upon the beer
and wine for evening business until approximately 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas: Would this be a seven-day operation?
Mr. Kashat: Yes sir.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Demopoulos, was your client aware of the conflict of the
Zoning Ordinance as it relates to an SDM license before he signed
that lease? You had indicated 40% to 50% of his business would be
a result of the beer and wine and to sign a lease being in conflict
with the ordinance could give you pause to at least condition that
'41I1r. lease based upon approval.
Mr. Demopoulos: I was retained subsequent to the execution of the lease and it had
been executed without a contingency like that.
Mr. Morrow: So you came after the fact?
Mr. Demopoulos: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I guess my concern is the same as Mr. Morrow's. It always amazes
me that every business that comes into Livonia that sells pizza,
groceries, everyone wants a beer and wine license. If we allow
everyone in this town that came before us and wanted a beer and
wine license to have one, this town would be known as the Beer and
Wine Capitol of the World. It gets to a point where do you draw
the line. We have an ordinance that plainly states 500 feet
distance between beer and wine licenses. I for one think that
should be adhered to. I am getting a little tired of all the beer
and wine. We are trying to teach our kids not to drink but we
continually issue more and more beer and wine licenses. I really
can't feel sorry for your client because number one, he should have
looked into all the background if he could get a beer and wine
license at this location before he purchased the property. There
is a store within 500 feet that sells beer and wine and now we are
going to have another one. To me I think somewhere along the line
`w.. we have to draw the line here. If the ordinance says 500 feet, I
am adhering to the 500 feet.
13259
Mr. Tent: Mr. Kashat, it is indicated in the letter that you have been in
business for 20 years in this type of operation. Can you tell me
where?
Mr. Kashat: We have a store now in Sterling Heights on Mound at Seventeen Mile
vr,,. Road. It is called Garden Deli at 39485 Mound, Sterling Heights.
I used to have a store on Dequindre in Warren and a couple in
Detroit.
Mr. Tent: So this has been your occupation for the last 20 years?
Mr. Kashat: Yes.
Mr. Tent: There is one thing I notice when we have these convenience stores
in the City and it really disgusts me. Every time a convenience
store opens up they take the liberty of putting every imaginable
sign in the window advertising their deli. This is contrary to our
Zoning Ordinance and everything as far as signage is concerned.
How do you propose to handle that?
Mr. Kashat: I discussed that with Bill MacDonald. He allowed me 25% of the
window signs.
Mr. Tent: But they all promise us this at the beginning and then they keep
sneaking in additional signage.
Mr. Kashat: If I do anything different than what is in your requirement, then
you can. . .
Mr. Tent: We hate to say you have to do it that way, we just want you to say
i t.
Mr. Kashat: I have to cooperate with the City. I am here and I want to stay.
I am not here to stay a day or two. I would like to stay forever
if I can.
Mr. Tent: How long has your store been open now?
Mr. Kashat: It is going to be open soon, within a week or two.
Mr. Tent: There is a notation here that the customers have come in and asked
you if you are going to have beer and wine.
Mr. Kashat: Some people are stopping by. They are asking when are you going to
be open and will you have beer and wine. I say I don't know yet.
We applied to the City.
Mr. Demopoulos: I would like to make one more statement. Mr. Kashat's compliance
with the law really speaks for itself. In 20 years of business he
hasn't had a liquor violation. He is already dealing with the
Building Inspector. He wants to correct the problems here. He is
going in with a very positive attitude.
Mr. Engebretson: We will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing
to speak for or against this proposal.
13260
Michael Carter, 14857 Park: Previously it had been 19910 Rensellor. I lived just
down the street from that area. Knowing the idea of convenience
stores and what they have to offer, I think that is an ideal
location for a deli and a convenience store even if it sold beer
and wine. Perry Drug Store was relatively inconvenient due to the
location; however, it was one of the only spots one could go to to
get beer and wine close by other than down Seven Mile Road into
Redford. This would be in Livonia and generate revenue for
Livonia. I have been to the other store that he mentioned on Mound
Road at Seventeen Mile Road. I have never met this man before but
that is an impeccable store. He runs it very well. Just as a
concerned citizen I would say this looks like a very good idea from
the standpoint of utilizing a space that is not presently utilized.
One mentioned the 500 foot thing, and I don't know this as a fact,
but I just heard you talking about F&M being able to sell beer and
wine. There is a Foodland I would suspect within 500 feet, again I
don't know I don't shop there but don't they sell beer and wine as
well? Isn't this a little bit contradictory? Here we have a guy
who is an independent businessman trying to make something of
himself and here we have a chain, which to me looks a little
politically incorrect if you will because the chain has some clout
and there is some motivation for the chain to keep the liquor
license out versus F&M and Foodland right next to each other.
Mr. McCann: You have the wrong Foodland.
Mr. Carter: I may be mistaken. I don't know enough about it.
Mr. Engebretson: Those issues are thoroughly researched. I think the concerns you
have are without merit but we appreciate your coming down.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-1-2-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#2-30-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
8, 1994 on Petition 94-1-2-1 by Gleno's Inc. requesting waiver use
approval for an SDM license for a proposed carry-out delicatessen to be
located in an existing building on the southwest corner of Grand River
Avenue and Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 94-1-2-1 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(r)(1) of
the Zoning Ordinance #543 which requires that such SDM licensed
establishment shall be located at least five hundred (500) feet
distant from any existing SDM licensed establishment.
13261
3) That there is no demonstrated need for an additional SDM licensed
establishment to be located in the subject area of the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
4461. #543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas
NAYS: McCann, Engebretson
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-2-2
by Building Committee, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct
a new credit union facility to be located on the south side of Five Mile
Road between Levan and Golfview Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
20.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
it may be necessary to detain storm water run-off from the site to
the existing natural water course traversing the site. We have
also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating no deficiencies or problems were found therefore their
office has no objections to this proposal; however they would call
to our attention that unless specifically waived as a function of
site plan approval, a protective wall is required where this
property abuts property zoned residential. We have also received
letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau
stating their offices have no objections to this proposal.
This office has also received a petition with 74 signatures of area
residents stating the purpose of the petition is to protest the
application for waiver use approval to construct a new credit union
because an increase in intensity of use is not appropriate for this
parcel of land because it does not meet the requirements for Waiver
Use approval. Reasons include, but are not limited to: 1. Its
proximity to a residential area would negatively impact the use and
enjoyment of residents' property. The increase in volume of
people, cars, traffic, fumes, noise and light pollution that this
development would bring would impinge upon the safety, convenience,
comfort and privacy of our homes. 2. The location, size, and
character of this development would not be in harmony with the
surrounding area's homes and businesses. 3. A high intensity
development would greatly interfere with the residents' access and
exit from their home. 4. It does not stabilize or enhance
neighboring property values. A probable loss of residents'
property value can be anticipated. 5. Over development along the
13262
ravine, Bell Drain, will cause further soil erosion along its banks
and additional water burden to the surrounding areas. 6. It is
not in concurrence with the City of Livonia's Master Plan.
Lastly, we have received a letter from 8 residents that live on
Nes. Fairway Avenue stating the following: Since we are unable to
attend this public hearing we would like to notify you in writing
that we are against the proposal to have a credit union constructed
on the site of the south side of 5 Mile Road between Levan and
Golfview.
We do not live in the area directly south of this area therefore
the lighting, car fumes, and noises from vehicles would not affect
us as they would the adjacent homes.
We object to the credit union because of the increased volume of
traffic it will bring to 5 Mile Road. Obviously the credit union
does an immense amount of business since they have outgrown their
present location. We live east of the proposed site plan. The
only times we have minimal difficulty making a left turn onto 5
Mile Road are: Sunday mornings, and after 9:00 p.m.
We agree that a new one-story structure is not offensive to
neighboring properties, however, the credit union facility is not
in conformance or harmony with the existing area. It is definitely
not: a residential home; a golf course that operates only 7 months
of the year; a funeral home; a dentist's office; or a doctor's
office.
For these reasons we object to the construction and operation of a
Niro. credit union in the site which is currently zoned as office space.
Thank you for your consideration of our objections to this matter.
Mr. Engebretson: I have another letter that apparently came to me and not the
staff. I will read it into the record and then pass it down to be
put in the package. It is from Donna Donaldson residing at 36113
Parkhurst, which is Lot 33, immediately adjacent to this building
at the easterly edge at the rear. This letter reads as follows: I
am concerned about the new proposal to move the credit union
somewhat to the west of the original proposed site.
The new proposal does nothing to alleviate our concerns regarding
intensifying the use of the site, or the increased pollution,
traffic and noise.
Again, I would like to say that I purchased my home in good faith
regarding the use and zoning of the property on Five Mile Road. It
was never my understanding that the City would want to intensify
that site.
I feel it would be very unfair to enhance the value of one person's
property to the detriment of so many others.
I urge you to continue to support us in maintaining the current
density of the area.
13263
I will pass that down for inclusion in the record and with that we
will go to the petitioner.
Bill Minahan: I am the President of BCI, the designers and builders of the
proposed project. This new proposal comes on the heels of the
*ft. denial that we received on September 28th when we proposed this
building on the eastern portion of the site. Since that denial we
made an aggressive attempt to reopen the search for property within
the City that would be compatible with our use. We elicited some
help from the City and the real estate agent that had helped us
before. We were not able to find any. We went back to the owner
of this property and were able to negotiate a purchase for the
western portion of the site, which during our last meeting we had
some indication that this might be acceptable.
We have a larger piece of property with greater depth than we had
originally. The proposal, the building itself, is identical to the
one proposed back in September. Obviously, because of some access
the building has been turned around but it is the same size
building with the same appearance. We feel by moving this further
to the west we are hopefully taking care of some of the problems
that were expressed, particularly with access onto Golfview.
The issue of increased vehicular traffic I hope I had addressed in
our previous meeting. We are a closed chartered credit union. We
are not a public bank. We are a closed charter which means you
must be within a certain group. It is a small membership. It is
growing and with help we hope this business will continue to thrive
and grow within this community. We can't do it at the present
location. We need another location.
One of the objections was that it was a quasi-commercial use near a
residential use. We feel by moving to the western edge of the site
abutting another commercial use, we have hopefully taken care of
that problem as well.
Some of the other issues that were raised, particularly the water
issue, again is the same at this location. We will comply with the
City's requirement to collect that water with catch basins on our
site and divert it into the Bell Drain according to the City's
request.
There was a flood plain issue involved with the original proposal.
By moving to the western edge of the site, a deeper site, we now
have eliminated that flood plain problem. Any development now and
in the future would not encroach on that flood plain.
The project now is, as I mentioned before, a much deeper project in
terms of the site depth. We have an average depth of about 400
feet. The building is positioned close to Five Mile Road creating
a much larger buffer zone to the residential in the back of the
property. We would also, as I mentioned before, want to maintain a
good neighborly relationship with everyone. We would intend to do
whatever buffering and whatever screening, obviously within reason,
°rr�
to help become a good neighbor with those people behind us. That
may include a berm of some sort and certainly some landscaping to
protect the view.
With that I ask that you again consider this and hopefully find
`. that this will be a good use for this area. I would like to answer
any questions you might have.
Mr. Morrow: Do we have any sort of a site plan that can illustrate some of the
things we just heard.
Mr. Miller displayed the site plans for the Commission.
Mr. Engebretson: In connection with your good neighbor policy have you presented
these plans to the immediately affected neighbors to get their
input on this?
Mr. Minahan: No sir we have not. We felt this was the proper forum for that and
we have brought some detailed plans to illustrate exactly how we
plan on developing it.
Mr. Engebretson: It is not uncommon for people that know they have some opposition
to try to work that opposition out in advance but you are right
this is the proper place to work that out.
Mr. Minahan went through the site plans for the Commission and audience.
Mr. Morrow: The part that is not illustrated as parking, where your development
ceases, is the balance of that property undevelopable based on the
DNR or flood plain?
`rr..
Mr. Minahan: No the existing flood plain occurs right here. (He pointed this
out on the plan) It is undevelopable from just a depth standpoint.
It is too far back for any useful purpose. You could build on it
though. There is nothing to prevent you from building within this
area.
Mr. Morrow: The reason I ask, granting a waiver for that piece of property
whether through you or someone else, they could develop that site
if the waiver was included up to that point.
Mr. Minahan: It could happen. We do not propose to do anything.
Mr. Morrow: I understand that you do not propose it but the waiver would extend
to that point.
Mr. Minahan: Yes I believe you are correct.
Mr. Alanskas: On your site plan you show employee parking of 20 cars. There is
nothing there to screen the headlights. I think if you had a five
foot berm going across there and then put plantings and trees on
top, it would help because the way it is now when your employees
park there in the winter time, their headlights would go right
across into the neighbors view. The way it is shown you have
13265
screening on the east and west side but nothing on the south side.
I think that is backwards. You need nothing on the west side but
you do need it at the back. That is a big concern of the
neighbors.
*ftl' Mr. Minahan: We respect that concern and we would be prepared to accommodate
that. This is a fairly heavily wooded area right now.
Mr. Alanskas: In the summertime.
Mr. Minahan: That is correct. We could augment that with a berm and with
plantings to block headlights but the biggest problem are cars
coming in this way. (He pointed this out on the plan)
Mr. Alanskas: I think by coming to the west you have done a lot. You have taken
into concern the children's safety as far as ingress and egress.
That has been done nicely. By coming to the back with your
drive-thru you now have more stacking of cars. That would
eliminate cars on Five Mile Road. You have come a long ways but I
think you should add landscaping to the south portion. That is a
big must.
Mr. Tent: Is this, as opposed to your original building location, reversed
about 180 degrees?
Mr. Minahan: About 90 degrees. We had the entrance on the west hand side and we
are looking at the entrance on the north, having the building face
Five Mile Road.
Mr. Tent: Under this proposal you are actually abutting two residential homes
`rw as opposed to the original proposal where you had about seven. Is
that correct?
Mr. Minahan: It is certainly less and I think your count may be accurate.
Mr. Engebretson: You made some reference to the screening that you intend to do in
the back. Does that show on your site plan?
Mr. Minahan: No it does not. We have a preliminary landscaping plan. I am here
to say we would be very agreeable to whatever you feel is
reasonable back there in terms of landscaping to create the buffer
and maintain a good neighborly relationship there. Obviously I
have to take water into consideration and good landscaping
techniques. We have plenty of room to do that and I don't believe
it requires 15 foot high walls. I think that would be ugly to look
at but certainly a berm and type of evergreen that would provide
the screening that is acceptable to everyone. We would certainly
be acceptable to that.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess I am just curious that since you are willing to make such
a significant commitment, why you wouldn't have shown that on your
plan prior to coming here tonight.
13266
Mr. Minahan: We have just become aware of that within the last few days as being
a concern of people during discussions with the City. We did
not have a chance prior to the submittal that we have given you to
show that in detail but we would be willing to do that.
Num. Mr. Engebretson: This just occurred to you several days ago. As you look at this
trying to be good neighbors, that didn't occur to you?
Mr. Minahan: We knew that was going to be a issue and we simply did not show it
on this site plan. We knew it was going to be a part of this plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you understand what is happening here tonight? You are
proposing a waiver use which is a really a two-phase project. What
we are dealing with tonight is two issues. One is a waiver use to
intensify the zoning to permit this use and the second is to
approve the site plan. They go hand in hand. We are at somewhat
of a disadvantage without a plan that conforms to what you intend
to do. Do you understand our dilemma?
Mr. Minahan: I understand your dilemma. We do have a plan that shows planting
back there. It does show very little and we would be very willing
to add to that.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal. We would appreciate if you would confine your
remarks to new information as compared to restating a particular
set of concerns numerous times.
Janet Prokopenko, 36126 Parkhurst: My husband and I live on Lot 32 directly behind
the proposed development. I would like to submit pictures where we
'orrov want you to see the water drainoff. We have been there five and a
half years and it has gotten worse since Binghams was extended
within two feet of Bell Drain. I would like you to see the cars
and there is a doghouse that was covered once since the water was
so bad. I do have a problem with pollution and the high water
since Bingham's driveway comes so close. We have a direct line
from our dining room and kitchen windows. Cars are looking into my
window while I am washing dishes. The traffic would be worse. It
is already bad coming from the pizza store, the convenience store,
the gas station. Because of all the businesses that are there
already it is hard to get into the left turn lane. The lights are
shining into our backyard quite a bit. The water drainoff is quite
bad. The trees are going down. I know neighbors that only have
one tree left. How long would it be before there would be more
development coming further back? If there are wetlands, a berm
would make it worse. The neighbors that bought along the creek
bought with the understanding the zoning would stay that way and
not have more usage. This would impact our property values quite a
bit.
Faye McIntire, 36066 Parkhurst: That is Lot 33. I am opposed to the waiver use to
construct a credit union for all the reasons that were already read
from the petition. In addition, I would like to make one specific
point. With the original petition the City had stated that they
were satisfied that the water issue had been resolved with the
'trow
13267
petitioner's plan to collect the runoff water and revert it into
the ravine, either by natural or mechanical means, near the culvert
at Golfview. The Engineering Department stated because the water
flows from the west to the east and since the runoff water would be
run into the ravine at the eastern end of the sub, it would not be
NwW, a problem with increased water and soil erosion for the residents
around the ravine. Now this new plan has the runoff water being
drained into the ravine at the western side of the sub. I have
great concern that an increase in the water amount in the ravine
behind the homes on Parkhurst will place a greater burden on the
banks of the ravine and increase the problem of erosion and loss of
backyards and contribute to the ground water problems that the
neighborhood already has. I request that the City re-examine this
water issue now that the water is being drained along the backyards
of our homes. For that reason and for the reasons stated in the
petition, I urge you to deny the petition to intensify the use of
this land.
Gary Kraus, 15194 Golfview: I am opposed to the petition for putting a credit
union in there for all the reasons that were in the petition. I
would also like to say the traffic in this area is already
increased as it has already been stated and I would request that
the City, if they could, re-examine the traffic patterns through
there because trying to get out of the Golfview area, turning left
in the morning, is really a hassle to get out in the morning and
also in the evening hours when there is peak traffic. I think with
the credit union going in there, with the amount of traffic that is
going to be there, it is going to create problems for both our
community and also the subdivisions across the way.
411m. Joel Johnson, 36092 Parkhurst: That is Lot 34. It is adjacent to the ravine
there. Since the last meeting with the Planning Commission
regarding the petition this developer had for a credit union on the
adjoining parcel of land, I would like to make a note that the DNR
rejected their request for filling in any of the wetland or flood
plain or relocating the flood plain on any of these five acres.
The residents were very pleased with the decision. The City
Engineers and Planning Commission previously contended that the
water would not be a problem; however, the DNR's decision denying
this request confirms our thoughts on the issue. Although we are
not engineers, our expertise lies in the fact that we see and
experience the soil erosion and the flooding firsthand. My wife
and myself were opposed to the credit union when it was proposed on
the east end of this parcel. Now that the site has been moved to
the west end, it would be almost directly behind our house. We
obviously would like to go on record as still being strongly
opposed for the following reasons: It is in direct conflict with
the Master Plan of the City of Livonia. The Master Plan shows this
proprty to be low density usage, the lowest density for any
developed property. The present zoning is in conflict with the
Master Plan and to approve the intensification of this zoning is
definitely going in the wrong direction. Being it will now be in
our backyard we are concerned about pollution problems, exhaust,
13268
noise, etc. that would stem from a credit union. We feel we
already carry more than our share of noise pollution from Bingham's
and the 24-hour service station location adjacent. The traffic
concerns stated at the previous meeting still exist with no
remedies to solve them being our subdivision has only one entrance.
`ft. I would also like to point out the credit union is on only two of
the five acres. I would ask the Planning Commission to look at the
whole picture. Intensifying the two acres automatically
intensifies the other three. Traffic from the two acres will be in
addition to the other three. We are also concerned about the drain
which will be carrying the water flow into our backyards. Mr. Jack
Smiley from the Autubon Society who attended one of the previous
meetings restated that this type of drainage would only prove
detrimental to an already bad situation regarding water problems.
Intensification of zoning is not in the best interests of the
community.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, you made reference to the Future Land Use Plan, that the
current zoning is in conflict with that. According to our notes
the Future Land Use designation is for office and that is what the
current zoning is. What did you mean by that?
Mr. Johnson: We did get a copy of the Master Plan and that was not consistent
with the way it is zoned presently.
Mr. Engebretson: It was zoned PS for professional services. The designation for
professional office services has been replaced with office
services. H, would you guess that might be the case, which could
have an apparent conflict but not a conflict in fact?
Mr. Shane: As a matter of fact the gentleman is correct. The Future Land Use
Plan is in conflict with the zoning.
Mr. Engebretson: So the notes indicating the Future Land Plan designation is
office is incorrect?
Mr. Shane: That is correct. We did check that because we heard that statement
last time and it is, in fact, correct.
Mr. Johnson: As I pointed out that is one of the reasons we purchased our home
and the lot on which it resides.
Mr. Engebretson: What is the Future Land Use Plan designation?
Mr. Shane: It indicates residential.
Edith Biegas, 15043 Woodside: That is in the Rennold's Ravine Subdivision. I am
opposed to the credit union waiver for all the reasons previously
stated. I want to add that when my husband and I bought our house
it took everything we had and one of the reasons we bought adjacent
to that vacant land is because we knew it was never going to be
developed as commercial. A small office building is okay. That
won't affect our property values. Now seven years down the road
there is a question that our property value could go down
13269
overnight and it will. I do believe it will. I don't think it is
fair for the credit union when I know they want to build there
because it is more economical for them to make the residents of
Rennold's Ravine suffer when we were there first and it was zoned a
ter certain way and that is why we bought our property. There is other
property available. They haven't found what they want because the
price hasn't been right for them. I don't think it is fair for all
of us average working people that pay our taxes and really struggle
to make ends meet to lose anything on our property value for the
sake of a drive-thru credit union that is growing and expanding and
plans to expand in the future.
Mr. Engebretson: You do understand that no matter what happens with this petition,
if this petition should fail for some reason, that you certainly
can expect that there could be some uses there that may even be
more intensive uses than this credit union. You just have to
understand what you are getting into here. We hashed that all out
at the previous session and there are some uses that could be quite
objectionable and the City couldn't do anything about it.
Ms. Biegas: I am just going by my understanding of what it is zoned for now.
I also want to say that the traffic is very bad. I work odd hours
and the only time I don't hit the traffic is when I leave at five
in the morning. It seems like in the afternoon when the kids are
getting off the school bus at three o'clock, traffic is very heavy.
Mr. Morrow: Just a comment to the young lady. I want to commend her because
she was aware of the fact it was zoned for some type of office use.
A lot of the things we have heard here tonight would be applicable
,,` whether it was a credit union or whether it was something that
complied with the zoning. I certainly understand where you are
coming from as it relates to intensifying the use and that is the
reason for the waiver. The matter of water and runoff and this,
that and the other thing could very well be applicable to the
existing use. I just wanted to be sure you were cognizant of that.
What the Chairman was trying to indicate, a lot of times through a
waiver use we can extract a lot more blending in with the existing
neighborhood through the waiver use request whereas someone coming
in with a complying use, they just have to meet the ordinance. We
just want to make sure you are clear on that because sometimes we
vote something down and later on we get something that we are not
happy with at all.
Ms.Biegas: I am really concerned that it is going to open up the door to the
rest of the vacant land along Rennold's Ravine and along Levan
also.
Donna Donaldson, 36114 Parkhurst: I am lot 33. This new site adjoins my property.
I am asking you again to support me and to support our neighborhood
in denying the use waiver. I would just like to point out also the
petitioner mentioned there were 230 feet from our property to their
proposed site. That is the depth on the western boundary but on
the eastern boundary the proposed site is only 81 feet. The
petitioner also mentioned he thought it would be better putting his
fir.
13270
commercial property next to the other commercial property. I am
not quite sure why he felt that way. To me, I think it would be
worse because now we are going to have stacking from four drive-up
banking windows and stacking for the car wash. To me that is what
'` we are trying to avoid, intensification of that site, and now we
are having multiple commercial properties side by side intensifying
the area. That is what we have been opposed to. In my mind it
doesn't make it any better to put them side by side.
Mr. Engebretson: Have you heard the petitioner's commitments that they are willing
to make in the buffering between your property and their property.
Anything to make you feel more comfortable with what is going on?
Ms. Donaldson: Absolutely not. I am totally and completely opposed and I would
hope you would continue to support us in this.
Vince Moceri: I am President of Fairway Farms Homeowners Association. We are
located directly north of this proposed site plan. We would just
like to say that Fairway Farms continues to side with the Rennold's
Ravine residents in their opposition to this plan as previously
stated for all the reasons that have already been talked about.
Larry Wathen, 36078 Parkhurst: I am opposed to the usage for the land for most of
the reasons that have already been stated. I would like to ask the
petitioner. He said a small credit union. What is a small credit
union? How many members?
Mr. Engebretson: I think we have been through all that. I believe that the
number of members was in the neighborhood of 4,000.
far
Mr. Wathen: 4,000 is a good size bank.
Mr. Engebretson: I think as credit unions go it might be considered small.
Mr. LaPine: I want to get some clarification. The notes say the existing
zoning is OS. Is it OS or is it residential?
Mr. Engebretson: The zoning apparently, Bill, is OS. The Future Land Use Plan is
residential.
Mr. Shane: If I can explain further. The Future Land Use Plan is simply a
guide to help the Planning Commission to make decisions on changes
of zoning. From time to time zoning is changed and the Future Land
Use Plan is also changed. Many times the two don't actually mingle
in every respect. Since the Future Land Use Plan is a guide only,
it doesn't commit the Planning Commission or City Council to any
particular solution on a change of zoning. This is one of those
cases where the zoning was changed and the Future Land Use Plan was
never changed to reflect that.
Mr. Engebretson: I must say though that similar to the issue that we just covered
a few moments ago where we suggested that a purchaser of a business
should have done his homework and checked out what he could and
couldn't do with that property, in this particular instance a
fir..
13271
number of people have indicated they did check the records and were
relying on what the City had to present to them before making their
buying decisions.
,,`, Mr. Shane: Except the zoning is the important issue. No matter what the
Future Land Use Plan, it is the zoning of the property at any
particular point in time, that is going to dictate what the
property is used for basically.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we better make that housekeeping change pronto. Put it
on the next public hearing meeting if that is appropriate and make
that change. Any further discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I have a question in regards to an approving resolution. It says
with regards to the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 2 shall be adhered
to. It does not say putting a berm in the back or future
screening. I don't know how we can do this in regards to the
landscape plan.
Mr. Shane: There are two ways you can go about it. You can delay your action
on the issue until you have fully developed plans to your liking or
you can stipulate that the landscape plan would be further revised
to include what you want. Probably an issue of this magnitude you
might want all the plans up to snuff before you act on it.
Mr. Engebretson: Before we go to the motion I would like to make a couple of
comments. Without reciting all the concerns that I mentioned at
the original public hearing that we had, I do want to make
reference to the fact that when a property has a zoning change that
,,` intensifies the use, in the case of a waiver use it requires that
all of the general standards of Ordinance 19.06 must be complied
with in order for that action to occur. It is my contention that
there are at least three of the ten conditions that must be
complied with that fail in this particular proposal and I want to
mention what they are: That the proposed use must be of such
location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the
appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding
neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood already exists so it is
not a matter of doing something that permits orderly development of
the surrounding neighborhood. I think the role is reversed here,
that this has to be developed in an orderly way to be in harmony
with that existing neighborhood. Secondly, there is another
requirement that in the waiver use process that the proposed use
will not have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring property or
the neighboring area in general, nor impair the value of
neighboring property. Third, there is a requirement that the
location, size, intensity, site layout and periods of operation of
any such proposed use must be designed to eliminate any possible
nuisance likely to emanate therefrom which might be noxious to the
occupants of any other nearby permitted uses, whether by reason of
dust, noise, fumes, vibration, smoke or lights. I think there are
several other of the ten items that could also be referenced with
those I think are issues that are far from subjective. They are
clear and I think they alone would prevent this site from being
used in this particular manner. With that I would indicate at this
`` point I would look to support a motion to deny, if there is one.
13272
Let me just add this comment. In connection with all of these
things our City motto says that "In Livonia Residents Come First"
and I think that here is a matter that it simply embellishes the
points listed within the ordinance. None of my comments should be
,,` interpreted as being opposed to this particular business locating
in Livonia. I would hope that if this proposal should fail, that
they would find other suitable property in Livonia to locate
because I think they do in fact have the intention of working with
the neighbors and they want to be good neighbors.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-1-2-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#2-31-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
8, 1994 on Petition 94-1-2-2 by Building Committee, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct a new credit union facility to be
located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Levan and Golfview
Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-1-2-2 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 general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with the
soar adjacent residential uses in the area.
3) That the additional vehicular traffic generated by the proposed use
will be detrimental to the normal traffic patterns 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
0543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, assuming that this goes forward to the City Council,
assuming it will be appealed within ten days in writing, a couple
of things we brought up here tonight I wonder if that could be
incorporated on the plan. One is the berm and the landscaping and
if it would be appropriate to move the waiver line to the end of
the parking lot to delete that portion that is not being developed
out of the waiver use. Maybe that is just academic. What I was
thinking is there some way we could preclude the development from
encroaching any further?
Mr. Engebretson: I don't think it would be appropriate for us to make any specific
reference to that.
Mr. Tent: I made the motion to deny. This has nothing to do with the Livonia
Parishes Credit Union. I think it is a fine operation and I would
certainly hope they would locate here within the City of Livonia.
`\r
13273
Their plans are terrific as far as I am concerned for another
location because they have gone the extra mile to put in the things
that were necessary to make it a viable type operation but I am set
in my ways. As a planner here I feel we have to get the best
location for whatever petitions that we look at and approve within
the City. This isn't the best. My mind is still set on a building
up at Six Mile and Newburgh. I feel I hate to see that go into a
restaurant. I certainly would like them to explore that
possibility. I know there have been all kinds of comments made
about deed restrictions, etc. but I still would like them to occupy
that piece of property. It has the building. It has the parking.
That is the only reason why I am voting a denial at this location.
I think you have a good thing going but I am in agreement with the
neighbors and what the Chairman had indicated just prior to my
motion.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine, Alanskas
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-2-3
by Dearborn Federal Credit Union requesting waiver use approval to
construct a credit union office to be located on the southeast corner of
Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
we should note the following items relative to the preliminary site
plan attached to the petition: 1) It may be necessary to detain
storm water run-off from the site to the existing natural water
course south thereof. The additional storm water run-off from the
OS zoning area will be slightly greater than a residential run-off
that was utilized for design purposes of the downstream ditches.
2) Please note that the service drive area located on the N.E.
corner of the site is contained within a 34' x 45' dedicated
right-of-way (as opposed to an easement area). 3) The location of
the drive approach to Seven Mile Road may require adjustment based
on a final review by the Wayne County Department of Public
Services. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's
office stating they have no objection to this proposal. However,
an approved hydrant with adequate water flow shall be no further
than 75 ft. from the Fire Dept. Connection. It is our proposal to
locate a hydrant in the island south of the main entrance. This
proposed location will meet the proper distance to the F.D.C. that
will supply the required automatic sprinkler system. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the site plans do
not comply with City ordinance, therefore, the Police Department
13274
cannot approve the site plans as submitted. Also in our file is a
letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating their office
has no objection to this proposal; however, they would like to
bring the following to our attention: Unless specifically waived as
a function of site plan approval, a protective wall is required
where this property abuts property zoned residential on the east
and south lot lines.
Mr. Engebretson: I presume the gentleman at the podium is the petitioner.
Steve Jaskowski: I am Building Facilities Manager for Dearborn Federal Credit
Union. I am a Livonia resident and I brought with me tonight our
architect and landscape architect that I will turn it over to so
they can talk to the site plan, Gary Cooper and Debbie Cooper.
Deborah Cooper: I am with Beckett and Raeder, Landscape Architects and Planners of
Ann Arbor, Michigan. We have prepared for you tonight a rendering
of the plan that we are proposing for this area. (She presented
the site plan) The current zoning is OS. It is a waiver use.
There are commercial uses to the north of the property and across
the street. There is undeveloped OS zoned property across the
street and residential to the east of the site. There is a county
drain that runs on the southern edge of the site with some
vegetation in that area. The entrance will come off Newburgh Road.
The circulation is in a counter-clockwise movement serving the
drive-thru lanes. There are four drive-thru lanes and an ATM
machine. There is a by-pass lane for traffic around the drive-thru
lanes should they get backed up. The purpose for the
counter-clockwise movement is to allow the driver visibility to the
teller and that is the purpose for the direction of the movement
here.
Mr. Engebretson: Did I understand you to say that all ingress traffic is taken
from Newburgh Road and all egress off Seven Mile?
Mrs. Cooper: That is correct. They can exit at these locations also. They
could exit onto Newburgh Road and enter off Newburgh Road but they
can only exit through the drive-thru lanes onto Seven Mile Road and
they cannot enter from Seven Mile Road.
The setbacks required on the property are a 45 foot setback along
Seven Mile, a 40 foot setback along Newburgh Road and 15 foot
setbacks on either of the rear and side property edges. We have
provided a much more significant setback on that area next to the
residential property. The site area is about 5 1/2 acres. We
developed the site with 9% of the site covered with building and
the allowable floor area coverage is 45%. We are proposing in lieu
of a screen wall, we are proposing along the residential edge a
greenbelt, which is permitted in your zoning ordinance. We are
looking at a four foot high berm. There is an existing berm back
there which is the depth of approximately the setback, which is
about 15 feet. We are proposing the berm to extend all the way
over to the parking lot edge. The greenbelt is also landscaped
with evergreen materials, focusing in on the closest residence at
13275
this location about 36 feet off the property line. We are focusing
on evergreen screening at that location in addition to this second
house, which is the next closest house, and we have also used
evergreen plant material at that location. All of the lighting
Nosy that is proposed for the parking lot is 20 foot height lightpoles
that are allowed in your zoning ordinance and we are proposing
shields on all the light fixtures. In regards to the Engineering
comments regarding detention being required, we have anticipated
the need for detention and are providing for a basin and have
checked to see that we are allowed to immediately access the drain
from that location. There shouldn't be any concerns from the
residential area in terms of flooding onto their property because
the runoff would be handled in the drain. With that I will turn it
over to Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Tent: The color of the brick and the signage?
Mrs. Cooper: I will let Gary address the color of the brick but I can address
the signage. The sign is basically the same building materials as
the building. It is a brick sign and it is the ten square feet
required by your ordinance.
Mr. Tent: The other question I have, you have a facility in Dearborn,
Michigan right now?
Mr. Jaskowski: Yes.
Mr. Tent: How does this compare in size to that location?
Mr. Jaskowski: The largest location that we have in Dearborn is 6,500 square feet
Now
on the bank main level. This building here would be approximately
12,000 square feet.
Mr. Tent: So this would be a satellite to the operation in Dearborn?
Mr. Jaskowski: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: I was hoping this would be the world headquarters out here but it
is not.
Gary Cooper: I am an architect representing the Dearborn Federal Credit Union.
I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I have a handout I will pass
around. Since Deborah focused on the site, I wanted to touch on
the building specifically. (He presented the building elevations)
It is a one-story building with a gabled roof down the center.
Mr. Engebretson: Does that gabled roof house the HVC equipment?
Mr. Cooper: No we submitted a detailed drawing which shows what we would do.
We would have a screen that is almost like a dormer off the edge of
the roof. That would be on the Seven Mile side that would screen
the mechanical equipment from view.
13276
Mr. Alanskas: Off Newburgh Road when you enter it is 25 feet wide which is fine.
In your parking lot when you want to come out it is 20 feet wide
but the lane to go into the drive-thru is only 15 feet wide. Is
there a reason for that?
`fir.
Mr. Cooper: This area is for a drop-off in front of the building. If somebody
parks at the drop-off, you want other cars to be able to pass them.
The building is one story but the bank would like to build a full
basement for future records and storage needs, etc. We only plan
to develop employee facilities there at this time. A certain
amount of the space will be mechanical.
Mr. Tent: How many colors do we have in that building? Are we going to have
two or three colors?
Mr. Cooper: Our approach would be to have a family of colors that are similar.
We would go from light brown to dark brown within a family of
colors. We wouldn't go from red to yellow to blue. We are looking
at a lighter sandy brown brick on the upper portion. We are
looking at a slightly lighter beige brick for the banding. We are
looking at a darker brown brick for the wider bands.
Mr. Tent: You have no canopy that you are putting up along with that?
Mr. Cooper: No, the only other material would be the window frames.
Mr. Tent: Would you tell me what color that would be.
Mr. Cooper: We would like to have it as a slight accent, a rust or burgundy
color. Something that would show up a little bit darker, more
intent than the brick, which would be a lighter brown.
Mr. Tent: Are there any buildings of that type or style that you have
put together recently which would be an example?
Mr. Cooper: I haven't used this particular color before. Most buildings I have
done in the past have been a reddish, dark brown brick. I didn't
realize when we applied for site plan that the color of the
materials would be a major issue.
Mr. Tent: Where I am coming from is we have a building in the City right now
that shocked us when they came in with all the different colors. I
was just hoping this wouldn't fall into the same family as that
particular building. It is a restaurant.
Mr. Cooper: I don't think this will be a striking difference in color. our
intent is is to have a family of colors that are similar.
Mr. LaPine: The elevation that faces Seven Mile, which is the main east and
west, from a person just driving by would that look like that is
the front of the building?
Mr. Cooper: I would think so. I would think these two elevations here, either
one could be considered the front of the building.
13277
Mr. LaPine: That is a concern to me. I like your design. I like the idea that
people enter the facility from the rear. What I am calling the
rear, really in your estimation is the front because that is where
the people enter but from Seven Mile Road I want to make sure we
have a type of design so to anybody driving by it looks like that
`` ' is the front of the building. But you are telling me it will
except there won't be a door. Is that correct?
Mr. Cooper: That is our main intention that the public is going to view the
building both from Seven Mile and Newburgh. We would like it to be
appealing equally from both elevations. Certainly since people are
entering off Newburgh, we have to have an entry there. This is by
no means turning the back door of the building to the public.
Mr. LaPine: The landscaping and berm you are going to put to the east where the
homes are, your partner was telling us you are going to intensify
the landscaping so that the two homes are going to get the biggest
part of the landscaping. Is that correct?
Mr. Cooper: I think what she was saying is the homes that are closest to the
building, that we would intensify the landscaping along their
yards.
Mr. LaPine: She showed us some plantings that ten years from now how big they
are going to be. It looked to me like they were awfully small.
How high will they be at planting time?
Mrs. Cooper: The zoning ordinance stipulates that in the greenbelt the minimum
height can be five feet high and that is what we have shown as the
minimum height.
Mr. LaPine: This is my problem. You are only giving me the minimum. Can we
get more than the minimum so we can help these people out?
Mrs. Cooper: I don't have a problem with that. We have to ask our client
though.
Mr. LaPine: The next question is about your lobby where the ATM tellers are.
People can go in there after hours. How is that going to be for
security?
Mr. Jaskowski: That will also be lit with lighting and we will also have cameras.
We are going to have camera systems which come with each ATM
machine but there will also be a camera system in the ATM lobby
itself covering the entire area.
Mr. LaPine: How long will that be open?
Mr. Jaskowski: We intend a 24 hour operation.
Mr. LaPine: The operation of the actual credit union is from 9:30 to what?
Mr. Jaskowski: From 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. , with drive-up lanes until 7:00 p.m. ,
Monday through Friday. The Saturday hours are 10:00 a.m. until
2:00 p.m.
aa.-
13278
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal?
Jonathan Deane: I am here representing a group of homeowners. We didn't get to
see the color renderings and the model. We just saw prints. None
„ft' of us are really print readers. We would like a little bit of time
to come up with a petition. We don't want to come off like we are
against this. We want to cooperate. We like Dearborn Federal for
a neighbor. Their landscaping looks extensive. There are a lot of
things about this plan we like but we do have some concerns. I
have a few things written down. Some of it has been answered,
questions about hours and drive-thru, amount of traffic. Seven
Mile and Newburgh is a very crowded and busy intersection. We have
looked at that. We have had a small meeting in the neighborhood
informally. A lot of our ideas are still basic. The drainage,
Newburgh and Seven Mile Road are quite a bit higher than our
subdivision. When we look out of our family room cars are up here.
The berm is a nice idea but it doesn't look like it extends far
enough to the south. A lot of things are different tonight than
what we have seen in the past couple of weeks. We have only had a
couple of weeks to prepare this. We have six or seven homeowners
that adjoins this on the east. They are all here. We are all
interested. We would like to have an opportunity to work with the
landscapers and with the people developing the site to address some
specifics as far as the landscaping. Some of the big questions
are, there are four sides to the property and they have this
drive-up window adjacent to the homeowners. We would like to know
if there is maybe some other way to work this. We would like to
work with these people but we are concerned about the traffic, the
exhaust fumes, devaluation of our property. The way they have that
curb on that one-way traffic, when you come around that corner to
go to the drive-up window the headlights are going to go across the
backs of everyone's house. There are seven of them. That is the
specific about landscaping, the trees and the berm. We are not
against that but we do have some drainage problems already. We
would just like a little more time. We just had two weeks. We
would like an opportunity to meet and get a forum with Dearborn
Federal, with the architect and landscapers and maybe go at it from
that way.
Mr. Engebretson: When you say you only had two weeks?
Mr. Deane: We received this letter. Mine is postmarked January 21st.
Mr. Engebretson: What have you done since January 21st to initiate any kind of
dialogue either with the City or with the developer?
Mr. Deane: The letter wanted us to come in and look at the plans. They have
been updated since we looked at them. There have been some
questions answered but it is a busy time of the year for everybody.
We have had a few people out of town and it has been difficult for
us to get organized.
Mr. Engebretson: Your principal concern would be the buffering, drainage, traffic?
Mr. Deane: Yes. We are not totally against this but we would like an
opportunity to work with them.
13279
Mr. Engebretson: Let me explain to you sir what the process is here. This is a
multi-step process where this is a beginning and from here the
issue goes to the City Council for final determination and there is
a period of a number of weeks in between when it leaves the
Planning Commission and it becomes a part of the City Council
__ agenda. It would be my impression the issues you are concerned
about are valid points of concern and they concern us as well.
However, I think it would be appropriate for us to act on this
issue tonight as contrasted with putting it on hold for a couple of
weeks and let you have that time between now and the time the
Council deals with it to have that dialogue to make sure your
concerns are dealt with. As we said in the previous petition,
in these matters of waiver uses the City has a big hammer available
to abstract all sorts of conditional concessions having to do with
things like berms, landscaping, planting size, etc. I think you
have heard the petitioner is quite willing to be cooperative in
those matters but this is our chance and the chance doesn't stop
tonight. As I said, this is step one. The City Council will go
through a similar process. By the time it gets there, these folks
apparently were not asked to bring samples of their building
materials, etc. but it sure would be in everyone's interest if they
brought that material to the City Council meeting so you could not
only look at the renderings but you could look at the actual
building materials to make sure you were satisfied with them. I
know the Council will demand that.
Mr. Deane: The point of it being architecturally compatible with our existing
homes. It did come up at our meeting. We are not familiar totally
with this procedure and we were just afraid that something was
going to get pushed through. We don't understand exactly what we
`. need to do here. We wanted to come and show that we are interested
in this. We like the idea of one neighbor in there. Some of these
things we understand about the setbacks and the brick wall and if
they had just petitioned for a regular bank we would have no say
about this. We are here to cooperate but we do have some concerns.
Mr. Engebretson: We are very happy that you came here tonight. We understand your
concerns and I would hope that you would take this interim period
between now and the time that the final determination is made by
the City Council to initiate this dialogue. Don't wait two weeks.
Start as soon as possible. Maybe when you leave here tonight, if
possible, and address all those issues and then also participate in
the City Council meeting where you will have the benefit then of a
better awareness of how the system works and what the process is.
You would have plenty of time between now and then to gather those
thoughts and have that dialogue and to prepare for that meeting.
That would be my recommendation. I will tell you that I live in
the subdivision next to yours and I can also tell you this corner
is one of the most notorious high profile intersections in the City
of Livonia and the points you make relative to that intersection
are well understood by everybody on this board, certainly by
myself, particularly because I live right there. If that meets
with your approval.
Mr. Deane: I appreciate your enlightenment.
`..
13280
Mr. Engebretson: The time is now to get going on this and meet with these folks
out in the hall after this item is settled if you do want to get
some serious dialogue started soon because they are all here
tonight. All of the various interests are here as I understand it.
Nor Mr. LaPine: I agree with you Mr. Chairman except I don't see any reason why we
can't table this until our March 1st study meeting. I don't think
this thing is that pressing that we have to move on it tonight. I
don't want to pass it along to the Council until we are all
satisfied here that what we are passing along to the Council we
agree with. Therefore, by postponing it until our study meeting of
March 1st it will give the opportunity to the residents to get
together with the Dearborn people and come up with the problems you
have and maybe you can work them all out and come back to us on
March 1st. We will look at it at our study meeting and then we can
hear it at our next regular meeting. I don't think that is going
to hurt anything.
Mr. Engebretson: I certainly recognize that that is a viable alternative. I would
like to ask the petitioner are you under any kind of severe time
constraints here?
Mr. Jaskowski: Not really. We would like to start breaking ground as soon as
possible. That is why we started it now so if there were any
problems. No, I don't have any problem with doing that.
Mr. McCann: Is there a possibility of doing it any sooner? We are putting him
off 30 days until March 8th and then he is going to be at least 45
days before he gets through City Council and he is not going to
have approval of this until the end of April or beginning of May so
*'r" that is almost going to put him until May or June starting date.
Mr. Engebretson: So what is your proposal Mr. McCann?
Mr. McCann: My first proposal is I would like to finish the public hearing but
if we are going to table it I would like to see it sooner.
Mr. Engebretson: There is no motion. We are still open to the public hearing and
we still have additional input from the audience.
Gerard Mazur: I am a resident on Lot 16 adjacent to the property. That is the
third house from Seven Mile. We moved from Livonia to Livonia
because of the services that you folks do and that area being the
up and coming nicer area in Livonia. I would appreciate the
opportunity to meet with these people. I would also like to share
that my wife, upon leaving the house this morning for work, did
notice surveyors pounding stakes as though planning for the
building so it is rather frustrating for property owners to get a
letter in December saying this is what we are thinking of and then
seeing the stakes being driven in the ground the day of the
meeting.
Mr. Engebretson: Whatever they are doing is at their own risk because nothing is
approved.
13281
Mr. Mazur: Just a few points I would like to discuss with these people when we
have the opportunity. The 100% screening that you mentioned on the
roof area is appreciated. I don't understand how that is done but
from the bedroom windows of my home, I would be able to see that
roof.
Mr. Engebretson: So there is no misunderstanding sir, what we are talking about is
the screen on the HVAC, which is all the air handling equipment on
the roof, will be screened from Seven Mile Road. That would not be
seen from eastern views. That entire area would be enclosed. We
are not talking about the roof. We are talking about the air
handling equipment.
Mr. Mazur: The ATM being in the rotunda is similar to the other Dearborn
office, which I am a member of, and will be convenient too. It is
a conflict from the plans we saw which was in the drive-thru area,
which was a concern because of the 24 hour lights shining in our
backyard. We just want to confirm that it is in the rotunda and
not in the drive-thru area.
Mr. Engebretson: That is done.
Mr. Mazur: Your comments about the trees. Yes, I think most of us would
appreciate some assistance there to hide some of the building.
Also, there was a comment made about the drainage of the water
being acceptable. How do we know acceptable? How does a homeowner
have the faith to stand behind the comments that it is acceptable
and we are not going to have water in our backyard because as John
was saying there is a sloping downwards from Seven Mile Road to our
homes.
Mr. Engebretson: With a five foot berm between your property and their property,
you would need about a 150 year rainstorm to go over that berm into
your backyard. It is going to drain to the south into that
existing ditch there. H was going to help me out on that.
Mr. Shane: Before the developer can even begin a building, it goes through a
rather extensive review by a number of departments, one of which is
the Engineering Department. That is the department who determines
how the drainage is going to be handled. I think you can have
faith in that. They are not going to allow this petitioner to do
anything that would jeopardize the adjacent properties. The very
fact that they are going to require a detention area shows they are
concerned about that too. The purpose for the detention area is to
retain water on the site in heavy rainstorms so it doesn't wash out
into the drain area but it goes out in trickles. Those kind of
things you can be assured will be taken care of.
Mr. Mazur: As John mentioned we do have confidence in the professionalism of
Dearborn Federal Credit, seeing their other building, so we are
interested in discussing this further with them.
Mr. LaPine: I would like to ask the architect one question. At our study
session some of the members had concerns about the drive-thru on
13282
the east side abutting the property and if there was any way that
could be flopped so the drive-thru was on the west side closer to
Newburgh Road and they wouldn't be intruding upon the homeowners.
Is that feasible?
`'' Mr. Cooper: Mr. Nowak of your Planning Department passed that concern on to us
and we looked at it. That is very complex. You have to go counter
clockwise. You don't want to mix your parking lot traffic with
your drive-thru traffic. My wife and I looked at it a number of
different ways but you would create more problems than you would
solve by relocating it.
Mr. LaPine: So you have looked at it and you don't feel it is from an
architectural point of view feasible?
Mr. Cooper: Not so much from an architectural standpoint but from the site
circulation standpoint. If you flipped it over you wouldn't be
able to enter the site that close to the corner. You would have to
enter away from the corner, then turn in front of the building
between the building and either Newburgh or Seven Mile Road and
then go through the drive-thru and then cut back on the next
street. In the meantime all your parking lot traffic would have to
flow across that traffic.
Mr. Tent: The question was brought up and this concerns me because it relates
to another item that is going to be on our agenda tonight, the
headlights passing onto the adjacent neighbors. Of course, the
residents brought up that concern and that is one of my concerns
also but I visualize here with your landscaping that you thought of
that because you have enough landscaping to keep any movement of
`eely traffic from affecting any of the adjacent homes. Is that correct?
Mr. Cooper: We have developed enough buildings and worked on enough sites to be
concerned about the neighboring residents. We know if we don't
make them happy our chance of getting this plan approved are
diminished. That is why we went to extraordinary efforts to
separate the building from the site. We will be glad to meet with
the people after the meeting and set up another meeting. I think
we have already gone to great lengths to provide a large buffer as
well to screen headlights. The berm will be of a height to screen
headlights.
Mr. Tent: That was my concern but when I saw your drawing and your landscape
here, in my mind it took care of that particular problem. I was
wondering if I missed anything here. You have a lot of landscaping
and if, as one of our Commissioner suggested, if we could have the
minimum trees of five foot a little larger so they would serve the
purpose. I think you have done a commendable job here with the
landscaping and traffic. Those concerns that were brought up here
tonight, I am sure they have been corrected.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-1-2-3 closed.
13283
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#2-32-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
8, 1994 on Petition 94-1-2-3 by Dearborn Federal Credit Union requesting
waiver use approval to construct a credit union office to be located on
the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning commission does hereby determine to
to table Petition 94-1-2-3 until the Regular Meeting of February 22,
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: Alanskas, McCann
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-3-5
by Joseph P. Durso/Dario Tomei requesting to vacate two drainage
easements on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road
between Pickford Avenue and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 12.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
Nov existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
it will be noted that the natural watercourse remains as an open
ditch across Lot 1 of the above subdivision. The watercourse has
been enclosed across Lots 2 and 3 and appropriate public easements
have been dedicated to the City circa 1984. Accordingly, we have
no objections to vacating the original drainage course as
established across Lots 2 and 3.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present? Since this is basically a
housekeeping procedure apparently the petitioner didn't see a need
to come and he is probably right. Is there anyone in the audience
who wishes to speak for or against this proposed vacating.
Mr. Tent: I think he should be here. I would like to table this until he
shows up. First of all, the unnamed natural water course I wonder
if that is the Tarabusi drain?
Mr. Shane: It is not the Tarabusi drain. It may or may not drain into it but
it is not the Tarabusi drain.
Mr. Tent: Has this vacation anything to do with the commercial property
there?
13284
Mr. Shane: No, I think the easements are a cloud on the title. Even though
they are not using them any more, they still appear on the title.
To sell the property that brings up a problem. It really is a
housekeeping chore because they have established a new easement and
'101m. the old ones are just sitting there as I indicated as a cloud. It
is not used for anything.
Mr. Tent: Then I am satisfied if it is not the Tarabusi.
Mr. Engebretson: I think what we are really saying is that what has existed for
ten years is what we are now correcting the record to show.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-11-3-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-33-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
8, 1994 on Petition 93-11-3-5 by Joseph P. Durso/Dario Tomei requesting
to vacate two drainage easements on property located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road between Pickford Avenue and Six Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-11-3-5 be approved for
the following reasons:
1) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect any public
utilities in the area.
2) That the subject easement area can be more advantageously utilized
by the property owner unencumbered by the subject easement.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code
of Ordinances.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-11-2-27
by DeMattia & Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a
fellowship hall addition to an existing church located on the south side
of Five Mile Road between Country Club Drive and Yale Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 20.
Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled at a previous meeting. We need a motion to
remove it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
13285
#2-34-94 RESOLVED that, Petition 93-11-2-29 by DeMattia & Associates requesting
waiver use approval to construct a fellowship hall addition to an
existing church located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Country Club Drive and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20,
`, be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Oz Wagner: I am an architect with DeMattia & Associates. The address is 45501
Elm Street, Plymouth. We are here this evening to review a revised
site plan. Some of the changes that are indicated on that plan are
part of feedback that was gathered during the January public
hearing in this auditorium and the Planning Commission work session
that was held last week. I would like to review what those changes
are. During the feedback that we received both from the Planning
Commission and some neighboring residents, the biggest item was
headlights from the automobile traffic that will be in the parking
lot using the fellowship hall and the worship facilities of the
church in the evening, the headlights glaring into the residential
properties on the south and on the east. What our resubmitted site
plans indicate is a landscape buffer with a five foot high
landscape berm. What we have done is we have reduced the parking
count in the parking lot from 295 to 274. Where we did that was in
this area here. (He pointed it out on the site plan) That allowed
us to increase that landscaped buffer from 20 feet to 40 feet and
in this area here we removed a couple of the parking spots so we
went from 30 to 40 feet. What that does is give us a larger area
of green space where we could construct this earth berm. This
earth berm will be somewhat free form. There are some existing
vegetation, some large existing trees that we are trying to save.
There are some beautiful pines. There is a willow. There is a
locust. There are a lot of existing vegetation which we are trying
to save. Recognizing it is there, we would like to leave it and
incorporate it into what we are doing. Also what we have indicated
on this plan is off site you will see some plant materials
indicated. We surveyed what some of these adjoining properties
have. There are various plantings there and we are indicating
roughly where it is, at least in existing condition on those
properties. What we have done is we have supplemented the
landscape berm with six to eight foot high pine trees that we have
strategically located in areas where existing vegetation is weak
and we are adding to it. This berm would be five feet tall and it
would be somewhat undulating. It is meant to be somewhat free
form.
Mr. Engebretson: By making it free form do you then stand a better chance to save
the trees that already exist?
Mr. Wagner: Especially in this area here. It allows us to move around. I also
would like to say there is a gathering of Livonia residents here
that are members of the church that are here to show their support.
13286
Mr. Morrow: I would like to review with the gentleman, because it is a church
we certainly know that Sundays will be a very busy time. Could you
refresh us on what the intense hours of the use of the new building
would be?
`rr.
Mr. Wagner: I am going to ask either the Minister or the Building Committee
Chairman to do that.
Mark McGilvey, 15150 Knolson: I am the Minister of the congregation. The intense
use would be between 9:30 and noon on Sunday morning, somewhat less
intense from 5:30 until 7:30 on Sunday night. During the week not
much intensity at all between 7:00 and 9:00 with the exception of
Wednesday it might be somewhat intense between 6:00 and 8:00.
Mr. Morrow: Those would be the peak hours when you might have the largest
ingress and egress into the parking lot? Other than that it would
be just minimal would you say?
Mr. McGilvey: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: I want to get that berm straight. On the east side you are going
to have a five foot high berm.
Mr. Wagner: That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: One stretch is 50 feet in width and one is 40 feet?
Mr. Wagner: That is right. Back in the south end it is 90.
Mr. Alanskas: The neighbors behind you know about this new plan?
Mr. Wagner: At our work session we had last week there was a large gathering
and we spent about one and a half hours after that meeting on this
so they have seen this and hopefully they are pleased with the
plan.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there any objection here to my going to the audience?
Mr. McCann: I would object only in that we have a lot of people here tonight.
I would have no problem if it is limited to the difference between
this plan and the new plan and how it will affect them because we
spent several hours last time. I would be interested in comments
regarding the new plan.
Mr. Engebretson: I think that is a fair point Mr. McCann. The public record
having been established at the previous public hearing I think is
quite complete. We then would want to confine our discussion
tonight to those things as it pertains to the changes made without
reviewing all of the points discussed at the previous meeting. I
don't see anyone coming forward. I do have a number of letters
here, one from Mr. Gary Sackett, attorney, who has written a letter
on behalf of the Church supporting this proposal and including a
petition signed by over 100 residents in support of this. He also
included a letter from Cub Scout Pack 890 that is very supportive
`rr.
13287
of the good things that have happened to them as a result of the
church's support. In addition to that we have a letter from
Shirley Clark, a member of the church, writing to again offer
support for this proposal. I am going to pass these down to Mr.
*ft. Shane so they are all included as a part of the public record. In
the interest of time I think it is fair to say all of these people
are very supportive and I don't think there is any purpose served
by reading them all into the record. That will all go forward with
this complete package.
Michael Carter, 14857 Park: That is directly south of the church. This 90 foot
expansion I think is excellent. I am very supportive. I am also a
member of the church. I think the idea of the parking lot being
there will be a plowed walkway for me to get to church. I really
appreciate that.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
##2-35-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January
11, 1994 on Petition 93-11-2-27 by DeMattia & Associates requesting
waiver use approval to construct a fellowship hall addition to an
existing church located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Country Club Drive and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 93-11-2-27 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 dated 2-3-94, as revised,
prepared by DeMattia & Associates which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevations marked Sheet A-3 dated 11-8-93
prepared by DeMattia & Associates, Architects which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 2-3-94, as revised,
prepared by DeMattia & Associates, Architects is hereby approved
and the landscape materials shall be installed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be
permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
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 4.03
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.
13288
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make a comment. I think this outcome is
wonderful. As I recall at the original public hearing the two
sides were very polarized. I think it is a good example of what
can happen when reasonable people meet in good faith and make
honest efforts to work out differences to everyone's satisfaction.
I just want to congratulate everyone involved in that process. It
really is heart warming because so many times we see this
polarization divide neighbors and friends. I think you all should
be congratulated.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Wagner: I have a procedural question. I understand that we need to go to
the City Council. If possible, we were hoping to get on their next
meeting, which I believe is in ten days.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#2-36-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Petition 93-11-2-27 by DeMattia & Associates requesting
*41111. waiver use approval to construct a fellowship hall addition to an
existing church located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Country Club Drive and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20.
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 Sunset Subdivision proposed to be located south of Eight
Mile Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 2.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller are you going to present this plat or is the
petitioner with us?
Lami Taweel: I am the President of Schrader-Porter and we are in Livonia. We
are the sponsors of the development for Mr. Carlesimo of Carlesimo
Products. We had this preliminary plat submitted about a month and
a half ago and the width wasn't enough for the lot so we worked
with the planners of Livonia and we talked to the gentleman south
of us where right now Mr. Carlesimo has bought ten feet and we
revised the plan accordingly so we have ten lots, minimum width of
about 80 feet, depth about 120 feet and any questions I will be
glad to answer them.
Mr. Engebretson: So the deficiency then has been resolved by getting that
Nits' additional ten feet.
13289
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved,
it was
#2-37-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
*400., 30, 1993 on Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset Subdivision proposed to
be located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Milburn
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for
Sunset Subdivision be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all
applicable Ordinances and Regulations of the City of Livonia.
2) That the Preliminary Plat represents a good layout for a very
narrow and isolated parcel of property.
3) That no City departments have objected to the approval of this
proposed Preliminary Plat.
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. Taweel: May I ask you to waive the seven-day period?
On a motion duly made by Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved,
it was
#2-38-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with the Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset Subdivision
proposed to be located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road
and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2.
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 676th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on January
11, 1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-39-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 676th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on January 11, 1994 are
approved with minor corrections.
`" Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
13290
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 677th Regular Meeting held on January 25, 1994.
On a motion duly made by by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#2-40-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 677th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on January 25, 1994 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Tent
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 678th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on February 8, 1994 was adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Z
games C. McCann, Secretary
'0110. ATTEST: .
•
,rack Engebretbon, Chairman
jg