HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-07-27 12910
MINUTES OF THE 668th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
NewOn Tuesday, July 27, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 668th 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 35 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Brenda Lee Fandrei* William LaPine Raymond W. Tent
Robert Alanskas
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, and H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning
Director were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
'taw Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 93-5-1-7
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution ##138-93,
proposing to rezone property located west of Farmington Road between
Norfolk Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4
from RUFA and OS to NP.
Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, as we discussed in our prehearing review, the fact that
this property is not presently owned by the City, is it proper that
we move forward with a rezoning to Nature Preserves since that
district does not apply to privately owned property?
Mr. Nagy: It appears we are a little premature. We had hoped by the time the
public hearing date rolled around that we would, in fact, have the
land dedicated to the City of Livonia and it has not come to pass.
In fact, we have a letter with today's date from the property owner
12911
indicating they need additional time to try to resolve some of the
matters such as land size as it relates to maximum building size,
etc. To that extent we would ask that you table the matter
following the public hearing.
'row
*7:33 - Brenda Lee Fandrei entered the meeting.
Mr. Engebretson: We will do that but first we will go to the audience. Is there
anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
rezoning proposal?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-5-1-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#7-144-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 27,
1993 on Petition 93-5-1-7 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #138-93, proposing to rezone property located west of
Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA and OS to NP, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 93-5-1-7 until such
time as the details of the conveyance to the City are worked out.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
fir. AYES: Tent, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Fandrei
ABSENT: None
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 93-6-1-9
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #335-93,
proposing to rezone the land area of Quaker West Park, Quaker Center
Park, with the exception of the triangular portion east of Lot 260, and
Quaker East Park in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 from R-2C to NP.
Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: H, who owns the property?
Mr. Shane: The City of Livonia
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department setting
forth the legal description to be used.
12912
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, The one parcel has been designated for play area,
correct?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: In reality the rest of the area can be used for that?
Mr. Nagy: They can be used for passive recreation. They are open for the
public. The public can walk through there and enjoy the area. It
just can't be developed in any active sort of way that would cause
a destruction of the trees.
Mr. LaPine: In other words, if someone wanted to put in a baseball diamond,
they would be prohibited?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-6-1-9 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-145-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 27,
1993 on Petition 93-6-1-9 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #335-93, proposing to rezone the land area of Quaker
West Park, Quaker Center Park, with the exception of the triangular
'`r. portion east of Lot 260, and Quaker East Park in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 18 from 12-2C to NP, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-6-1-9 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for permanent
preservation of the subject park lands in their natural condition.
2) That the subject lands meet the qualifications for designation as
nature preserves.
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 93-6-1-10
by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of
Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Drive in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 7 from R-3C to OS.
Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
12913
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have also
received a petition containing 65 signatures which asks that the
Commission turn down this request to spot zone this one vacant
lot. They feel if this owner succeeds in the rezoning, the two
Nr. adjoining residents will also request rezoning and if the Seven
Mile frontage changes, this would tear out a big corner of their
subdivision. They state another point to consider is the traffic
problem. Most importantly they state is all the current
development in this northwest corner of Livonia and they go on to
list the current developments under way. They finish by saying
please vote to keep this corner as residential and let the owner
find his office space in an existing development, of which there
are TOO MANY to choose from. In addition, we have a letter from
the applicant indicating he became aware that the sign required by
City ordinance to be posted on the property by the owner of the
property is missing. He wanted to assure the members of the
Planning Commission that the sign was property posted. However,
due to the fact that there is some question of whether or not a
proper public notice was given, he as the petitioner would have no
objection to the rescheduling of this matter to a later date to
afford him time to reconstruct and replace the sign on the property
so, therefore, he will post the property accordingly just as soon
as the Commission can determine an appropriate time for the
rescheduling.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, on our master plan, the future land use designation for
this particular parcel is low density residential. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, did I understand that he did put up a sign?
Mr. Nagy: He indicated he had paid for and was prepared to show a receipt
that he had contracted with a sign installer to post the
appropriate notice as required by our ordinance. However, when I
called him, he went out there and he could not find his sign. He
doesn't know for sure whether it was up there or not but because
our ordinance requires it, he indicated he would be happy to have
the matter rescheduled to give him time to work out the problem of
the missing sign. There is some question as to whether or not this
is a proper public hearing pursuant to our ordinance because the
property was not posted.
Mr. LaPine: That is the question I wanted to ask. If we rule on this tonight
either for or against it, then someone can raise an objection
because it wasn't legally posted.
Mr. Engebretson: I want to put one thing to bed immediately. I am sure there are
some residents here wishing to speak on this item and therefore we
will proceed with this public hearing. Whether or not we will deal
with an approving or denying resolution, we will hold a public
hearing and we will probably hold an extension of this public
hearing at some future date.
12914
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make Mr. Chairman in regards to what the
petitioner had said, when we enacted the ordinance it was done to
make sure the people in the surrounding area were aware there was
some rezoning in the works so it didn't come as a surprise to them
if they didn't happen to be the ones being notified. I think the
Now
petition we have here tonight signed by 65 residents shows most
were contacted and they were certainly aware of what was going
down. Technically, whether or not we are in order I don't know,
but I think the word got out, which was our intent.
Mr. Engegretson: We are going to make sure we don't have a flawed public hearing
tonight so we will do it along the lines I indicated.
Mr. Tent: I just wanted to echo what Mr. Morrow had said but I want to take
it one step further. I think it has been properly advertised. The
notice has been sent out to the neighbors. The sign was just
something to alert the public. I, as one Commissioner, would like
to proceed with the public hearing and take action on it tonight.
I think it has the next course, by whatever action we take, and it
would go on to the Council. I think these people came out here to
represent their neighborhood. They want to hear what is going on
and they want to give us their opinion. I am not in favor of
tabling it to give the petitioner time to put a sign back on his
property. If nobody was here, if we didn't get this petition, then
I would say nobody knew about it but that is a moot case about the
sign being knocked down. I say let's act on it tonight and whether
we pass it or reject it, let's send it on to Council.
Mr. Engebretson: With that, we will ask the petitioner to come forward and tell us
why you are making this request.
`r..
Mr. Nagy: The petitioner indicated he would not be in attendance for the
reason given in his letter. He had a question as to whether or not
this was a legal public hearing.
Mr. Engebretson: We are going to proceed with the public hearing. We are going to
give the residents the opportunity to talk but I for one Mr. Tent,
I would appeal to you to delay this issue and make them go through
the process. I have some questions to ask him about that site. I,
for example, walked that area. One of the residents, who I see in
the audience tonight, mentioned to me recently he was concerned he
hadn't been given notice through the sign and I immediately went to
that location and walked the property from end to end and found no
evidence of a sign ever being on that property and I don't think
there ever was. I drive by there twice a day.
Mr. Tent: Couldn't we open up the door? Couldn't everyone do that?
Mr. Engebretson: Then they will never get approval.
Mrs. Fandrei: I just want to speak in support of your recommendation. I would
like to hear the audience. I think it is a Council resolution that
a sign be on the property not just for the immediate neighbors but
for any passer by. That is the purpose of the sign. We, at the
12915
end, may table it but I would like to see it tabled until the
petitioner can come and until we have the sign.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
Gus Tawil, 18830 Nola: I am the President of the Melody Manor Subdivi.ion, which
starts at Blue Skies and goes southwest. The sign wasn't there. I
met with Mr. Engebretson and informed him and he said he would take
care of it and thank you very much. As far as the residents
knowing about the petition, we had an announcement to the
subdivision. That is Melody Manor and does not include Prides
Court, which is behind us. All of our people know about it so if
you want to take action today, we can appreciate that especially if
it is in our favor. I have two points to bring to your attention.
First one, during the debate on the Shenkman development of the
golf course, if you recall those days, many of you helped us in
that respect. Part of the compromise was to have two rows of
houses bordering our subdivision and the office building that was
going to go on the southwest side of the Newburgh intersection. In
other words, where you see R-3 there would be two rows of
residential houses over there to shield us from the Shenkman
development and from nowhere we get into this petition to have that
one sandwiched between two residential, which is unbelievable.
Secondly, if you look at the development on the north side and
south side of Seven Mile Road from Farmington Road to I-275, you do
not see anything except residential developments along both sides
except at the Newburgh and Seven Mile Road intersection. This
would be the only place where it would be rezoned and not
,,` residential. These are our main points. There are many other
points but we leave it up to you. You know it more than anybody
else that the residents in Livonia come first. The petition you
have, 65 names, that is almost like 100% of the people of our
subdivision. I appeal to you. We ask you to reject it and reject
it unanimously so there will be no more concurrence of this
petition.
Joseph Lemiux: I live on Lot 24 of Melody Manor Subdivision. I have worked with
the City in an architectural field for many years and the City has
always taken its master plan as being a good idea and one of the
things that has been opposed is spot zoning. This is probably the
most flagrant example of spot zoning. Right now this particular
lot drains into the two lots on both sides so anyone that builds in
there will have to dump their water in some neighbor's property. I
just want the Planning Commission to know that is a bad idea and I
would like them to oppose it and recommend that it not be accepted.
Mr. McCann: I would like to support Mr. Tent's view on this particular petition
tonight. We were all members of the Planning Commission when the
zoning ordinance was amended to require people to start putting
signs out to inform people in the surrounding area of the proposed
change of zoning. I think if you look at the intent of the
ordinance, it was to inform the local residents that there was
going to be a change of zoning around them. In this instance if we
were to vote in favor of this particular item, we would say yes
12916
there are a lot of residents who oppose it and it would be unfair
to go ahead with this proposal without giving the rest of the
residents the right to know. However, if we are inclined to deny
it, the intent of the proposal was to inform them. There would be
no change based on our recommendation therefore the necessity of
4r. posting it would not have an affect on the local residents. In
this case we are doing what they requested. I think we could, if
that was the Planning Commission's desire at this point, vote
against it.
Mr. Morrow: I guess I am disappointed that the petitioner did not see fit to
join us tonight to discuss this. I was not impressed with the fact
that he had a receipt saying he had charged somebody to put up a
sign. It was his responsibility to see that sign got up whether he
had to go there every day to make sure. The second party has no
bearing on him. It was his responsibility to see it was posted.
If this has to go through another public hearing, it means that
there will be costs incurred by the City. The property owners will
have to be re-advised and it seems like the meter is running on
costs. That is why I feel I belong to the same camp as Mr. Tent
and Mr. McCann. I would like to go forward tonight and if we have
erred, then the City Attorney can tell us that and then we can go
through the process again but I would like to move this tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: I have three votes against me but I am going to still speak in
favor of not acting on this tonight. I want to make it clear I am
adamantly opposed to this proposal and I will vote to deny it in
the strongest possible terms when the time comes. However, I think
this petitioner has acted improperly. I think he didn't even have
the courtesy to come here tonight and he had no consideration for
the residents that took the time to come down and speak so I would
like to put him to a little bit of inconvenience. I would like to
have him post his sign. I would like to schedule this at our first
opportunity after that sign has been erected and will have met the
ordinance requirements and not call another public hearing. This
is the public hearing. We will table the item. We don't have to
advertise. We don't have to recontact any of the people. I think
that Mr. Tawil as President of that civic association can request,
and I would assume he would want to be informed when we would bring
this back for resolution. He could be here to protect their
interest. I think there is a possibility that if we act on this
tonight and deny it, that we may well have this petitioner say we
didn't give him a fair shake. He wasn't here. He didn't have his
say and I don't think that we can run the risk of doing that. I
want to make it perfectly clear that I will lead the charge to deny
this petition but I don't want to do it tonight for the reasons
that I mentioned.
Mr. Morrow: I don't want to debate the Chairman but I would suggest that if we
do not move on this tonight that we would have to have another
public hearing because one of the intents of the sign is to advise
the people, not only in the immediate area, but in the City, of
something that perhaps the people didn't get a notice who weren't
in the subdivision but may be in the proximity and didn't know it,
so if we move it forward tonight fine. If we don't, I would say we
,,` would have to have another public hearing.
12917
Mr. McCann: Along the same lines, my understanding is the ordinance requires
the posting of a sign to notify people of the public hearing. Why
would we put the sign up there if we weren't having a public
hearing?
Mr. LaPine: I, like you Mr. Chairman, am opposed to the rezoning of this
property but I also agree with you that I believe the intent of the
ordinance was to put up the sign not only to let the people in the
immediate area know that there was a rezoning going on but for
anyone that passes by. Simply because you have a rezoning in a
particular area, that may not only affect the people in that area,
it may affect somebody that lives down the street 3, 4 or 5 blocks
that might want to speak on it. I think legally it is incumbent
upon us that the sign should have been put up. I agree, as Mr.
Morrow pointed out, it is the petitioner's responsibility to see
that sign is up there. If he hired someone, he should have gone
out there and seen if the sign was out there. If it wasn't out
there, he should have gone back to the sign company. But that is
neither here or there, the sign was not put up. I believe the
proper way to go is to table it. I also have to disagree with you
because I think another public hearing has to be held basically
because people that weren't there before may want to speak on an
opposite point of view and if we don't hear them, then I think we
are not doing our job. I would be in favor of a tabling motion
even though I think it is agreed that just about everybody on this
Commission is going to vote against it but legally I want to make
sure we are on stable ground.
Mr. Engebretson: If no other reason for tabling, we need to table it to get legal
advice.
Mr. Tent: I disagree with the Chairman. We are trying to save some money
here for the City. The fact is, this isn't the end of the road.
If we take negative action against this and deny the petition, he
will still have to go before the City Council. That sign is still
going to be up and he is going to have to go in and present himself
before them. If we were to take the last action here, he might
have some grounds to stand on but we are going to pursue this
through the Council and he will be able to get out to them. They
will advertise for another public hearing. I think we should stand
up and be counted. If there is going to be a legal challenge
somewhere along the way, let's stand up and do it. Why should we
put our heads in the sand? This is the first time since I have
been on the Commission that I have heard of anybody losing a sign.
I say let's move ahead.
Mr. Alanskas: John, do you have an idea roughly what it would cost the City to
have another public hearing?
Mr. Nagy: Approximately $100.
Mr. Engebretson: Does the petitioner pay a fee?
Mr. Nagy: He does pay a fee. In fact, this petitioner here paid a $240
filing fee.
r..
12918
Mr. Engebretson: If our Law Department tells us that this public hearing was not
proper, our tabling action was not proper, we can not approve the
minutes and have him withdraw his petition and file a new one and
charge him a new fee.
Mr. Alanskas: My opinion is I think for all legal ramifications we should table
this and make sure we are correct 100%. That is my opinion.
Mr. McCann: John, do they have to re-post and re-advertise for a public hearing
before the Council? Let's say this is denied. Council could
approve it without another public hearing?
Mr. Nagy: On rezoning matters public notice is given at both the Council as
well as the Commission level. They only post it initially for the
hearing of the Planning Commission.
Mr. McCann: I will withdraw my prior comment on this because if they only have
to post the property one time, the Council theoretically, even if
we deny it, could approve it and therefore it would have been
improper notice if the Council went ahead and approved it at this
time. Could we, since it wasn't posted on time, dismiss this
petition for lack of proper procedure. Not decline it, not approve
it but dismiss it because it wasn't presented properly and that
would force him to refile?
Mr. Nagy: The petitioner is aware from the letter that the matter was going
to be delayed, that it would not be heard tonight because the sign
was not there. He was prepared that this matter was not going to
be acted upon and that it was going to be delayed at his own risk
because as the ordinance points out, it is his duty to post the
`4041., property and it was not properly done. Therfore, he is aware the
delay is one of his own doing.
Mr. McCann: I am looking at the cost to the City. Not just the $100 but the
employees' time and everything else. Also the cost of the
residents' time in coming out to this hearing and also another
public hearing.
Mr. Nagy: I understand the direction of your question. I am not sure I can
give you a legal answer.
Mr. McCann: I am just wondering if we can dismiss it at this point. In a
normal situation where the petitioner has provided the proper items
for a public hearing, would it be appropriate to dismiss it.
Mr. Nagy: I think you could dismiss it but I think he would be entitled to at
least one-half of his money back.
Mr. LaPine: In some ways, I believe, we can accept some of the blame here. We
have a study session. If we were to ask the question at the study
session if this property had been appropriately posted and we found
out it wasn't posted, then we could have said we have to postpone
this hearing until such time as it is properly posted. I don't
think we should put all the blame on the petitioner. It is his
responsibility but in some respects we should have made sure the
property was posted.
12919
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to speak in favor of a tabling motion where we can get
some advice from our Law Department as to what is the absolute
correct way to dispose of this matter, whether it is to rescind our
tabling, to bring it back to the table and dismiss it or delay it
or whatever is the right thing.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-6-1-10 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#7-146-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 27,
1993 on Petition 93-6-1-10 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and
Blue Skies Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7 from R-3C to OS, the
City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition
93-6-1-10 to date uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Fandrei, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
`or.
Mr. Engebretson: Whoever came here tonight that is interested in knowing when this
item will come back for reconsideration, please leave your name
with Mrs. Garvey and she will be sure to notify you. The matter
may be a month away or it may be months away.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-5-2-13
by John Bolda, Ram's Horn Restaurant, requesting waiver use approval to
increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Morlock and Norfolk
Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have
no objection to this proposal. We have also received a letter from
the Traffic Bureau of the Department of Public Safety stating not
enough parking has been provided for the increase in seating. 63
are required by ordinance. Only 54 are provided. Lastly, we have
received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating
the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient
12920
parking - 118 seats will require 59 spaces and 1 space for each
employee. Proposed are 54 spaces. We feel that the 2 spaces at
the northeast corner and the 2 at the southeast corner are unsafe
and would suggest that they be turned into landscape beds. 2.
Deficient landscape area - required is 15% of the site or 4455
square feet; proposed is approximately 1400 square feet of ON SITE
landscaping. The balance of the 3900 square feet noted on the plan
is on the public right of way. There is no landscaping on the
Morlock Street right of way. 3. There is a utility pole at the
rear of the building which will need to be relocated to provide for
an open driveway. 4. There is currently a non-conforming pole sign
on the property. It does not appear on the site plan. Also in our
file is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have
no objection to this proposal.
We have also received a letter from Clara DiPaolo of 20361
Middlebelt stating after they have increased the floor area and
seating capacity eventually it will draw more eating patrons. Now
the question, where is the parking for the extra customers? We
have also received a letter from Ron Campbell of 20403 Fremont
stating he will be unable to attend the public hearing but his
concerns are as follows: 1)There is not enough parking space to
accommodate the current customer capacity. 2) Being open 24 hours
the restaurant draws a rowdy late night, early morning crowd of
customers wanting to eat after the local bar closes. The City's
own records will show the frequency of late night and early morning
police calls resulting from this loitering developing into
disturbances. In many cases these disturbances result in harm to
the neighborhood's residents or damage to our property not to
mention the cost to all City taxpayers for these calls made by the
�.. police. 3) It has been demonstrated that the management and
personnel of the Ram's Horn are unconcerned with controlling and
our preventing the negative effects their doing business here has
on our neighborhood nor are they concerned with accepting
responsibility for the behavior of their customers outside of their
building even if this behavior turns into disturbance resulting in
police action and spilling over into the neighborhood. 4) This
neighborhood has suffered from the City's decision to favor
businesses over taxpaying citizens. 5) We the residents asked for
a Slow Children at Play Sign. We didn't get it. Businesses around
us get whatever they request. What's happening here is the
property owners are trying to get out, this is witnessed by the
number of homes for sale in our neighborhood. The problem is we
can't get what our property is assessed at therefore people are
turning properties into rentals and fleeing or are hanging on
trapped or selling at a loss. It is my opinion that once the
property owners are gone, the neighborhood is rental homes, the
businesses have folded up or moved on, the neighborhood will be
just urban decay not unlike many areas of Detroit.
We have also received a letter from Sandra DeWater of 20335 Fremont
asking when the Commission is going to give the residents of their
little subdivision a break and stop allowing businesses to infringe
on their lives. She pointed out the reasons the expansion of Ram's
12921
Horn would be the ultimate invasion as follows: 1) Early a.m. the
time bars close and people go for a bite to eat and they are
awakened approximately three times a week to loud voices and
obscenities from intoxicated customers. 2) They must put up with
delivery trucks even though the City promises they would stop this
action. 3) Another promise by the City to enforce the law of noise
pollution to keep the garbage trucks from waking them before 7:00
a.m. They do not enforce the law. 4) Traffic - Where are the
increased patrons going to park? She feels she has a part time job
just coming before the Commission to try and protect their little
space. 5) The clutter and stench from County Style Market alone
would discourage anyone from believing that the City enforces the
rules equally between businesses and residents. She ends by asking
the Commission to stop these greedy shop owners from gaining wealth
while the rest of us lose sleep and serenity.
Mr. Shane presented the site plans to the Commission.
Mr. Shane: They would tear down the existing building to the south to develop
the area into a parking lot and provide some additional landscaping
on the site. They will leave open the north and south entry onto
Middlebelt and will close an existing access to Morlock Avenue.
There still would be a parking deficiency of 17 spaces, which is
one more than exists on the site now. They are asking for 118
seats and it would be an increase from the current 96 seats. If
this petition were approved in its current form, that parking
deficiency would require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. They are not proposing additional signage at this point.
Mr. Morrow: Would you know the current deficiency as it relates to parking?
Saw
Mr. Shane: It was 16 and now it would be deficient 17.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and add whatever
comments you wish to make.
John Bolda, 20385 Middlebelt: We would like to expand the restaurant and parking,
first of all to increase business and secondly to beautify the
restaurant in that area.
Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of people do you think come in off Morlock?
Mr. Bolda: Ten percent.
Mr. Alanskas: All the landscaping in the front, is that all coming out?
Mr. Bolda: It will all be landscaped.
Mr. Alanskas: What kind of trees are going there?
Mr. Bolda: We haven't done the landscaping plan yet.
Mr. Alanskas: You have five trees in front?
12922
Mr. Bolda: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: John, did you petition in 1989 or has the restaurant changed hands?
`tlimy Bolda: Yes, I did with my partner.
Mr. Tent: You certainly made a big improvement over the previous petition by
getting the additional space. It is not as bad as I thought it
would be. There were some questions we had about the method of
screening the mechanical roof units, etc. Is that something you
are prepared to talk about tonight?
Mr. Bolda: My architect is.
Shaheen Boumaroun: I am with Technical Group Inc. , the architectural firm that was
hired by Ram's Horn to do the remodeling for their restaurant. I
will be more than happy to answer any questions you might have. As
far as the rooftop units, there is a note on the revised site plan
that indicates that all rooftop units will be enclosed. It is not
going to look any different. The only thing we are doing is we are
expanding 13 feet forward and matching the existing brick to the
new brick and basically the entrance is going to move forward.
There will be no drastic changes in the architectural design or
colors.
Mr. Engebretson: What about this band of light that you propose to put around the
building?
Mr. Boumaroun: That is a backlit band and I was talking to John on the way here.
Nair It is similar to what they have now but it will be built in where
you don't see the light behind it and as far as the colors, it is
going to be beige and burgundy.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you bring samples with you?
Mr. Boumaroun: No.
Mr. Engebretson: That is too bad. There have been a few other instances
where these bands have been discussed as being very subtle and they
turn out not to be. We had asked the staff to ask the petitioner
to give us the location of a similar type of structure that we
could go to visit over the weekend. Unfortunately, my page came
out blank except, for the header so I didn't have the opportunity to
go there but I see you did do that. I don't know if anybody else
had the opportunity to do that. You were going to consider
reduction of the number of seats. Has that been done?
Mr. Boumaroun: We were never asked to do that, no. What we were asked to do was
reduce our parking lot. (He pointed this out on the plan)
Mr. Tent: A follow up to my question. I missed the part about the red brick.
Is that going to be painted?
Mr. Boumaroun: No the brick is going to be matching the existing brick.
12923
Mr. Tent: We were speaking about signs and you mentioned signs, which isn't a
part of this proposal. Was there any consideration of you using
your signage on the roof because of the way the roof was designed.
Do you have any intention of putting your signage on the building?
Mr. Boumaroun: That has to be answered by the owner.
Mr. Bolda: I have already discussed it with my partner.
Mr. Tent: That will have to come back at a later date.
Mr. Boumaroun: It is not part of this proposal. The existing sign right now, this
is only preliminary site plan approval. I understand if we are
approved here, we have to go to the ZBA and then we will talk to
them about the sign. We all know that the pole sign that we have
right now is not in compliance with the new updated sign ordinance.
On the way here we were talking about it and I am very sure we can
work something out.
Mr. Tent: You indicated the method of screening the rooftop mechanical unit.
Can you tell me how you are going to do that?
Mr. Boumaroun: Basically what it is going to be is an extension of the seamless
metal roofing that we are using for the mansard roof. We are going
to pull some around the units on top of the roof.
Mr. Tent: As far as materials, etc. , as the Chairman indicated you haven't
brought them.
Mr. Boumaroun: The brick will match the existing brick.
Mr. Tent: As far as the mansard roof?
Mr. Boumaroun: It is a seamless metal roofing of bronze color and I indicated to
Mr. Nowak that the building right next to the Ram's Horn Restaurant
has the same exact seamless metal roofing.
Mrs. Fandrei: You indicated you are not quite set on the landscaping?
Mr. Boumaroun: We are set on the percentage of the landscaping but I am talking
about a landscaping plan where it indicates what kind of trees we
are going to put in. We have not done that yet.
Mrs. Fandrei: Are you leaving the rock?
Mr. Boumaroun: No. The whole thing will be newly landscaped.
Mr. LaPine: I thought your landscaping was very nice. My question is you are
going to close the entrance to the west on Morlock. Is that
correct? Right now that is where your trucks come in for delivery.
Where will they be coming in now?
Mr. Bolda: They will be coming in off Middlebelt.
12924
Mr. LaPine: If they came in off the south entrance they will go around the
building and back out to the north. Is tat correct? I would
assume you will have semi's coming in there. What kind of trucks
go back there?
Mr. Bolda: Semi's.
Mr. LaPine: Now they will come off Middlebelt on the south entrance, go
around the building, they unload and then they back around and go
out the north entrance. Is that the way they are going to handle
it? If you pull in there, you will not be able to back out.
Mr. Bolda: They will go around.
Mr. LaPine: How often are deliveries made?
Mr. Bolda: Three or five times a week.
Mr. LaPine: Are these done early in the morning, evening?
Mr. Bolda: Between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine: The building you are going to demolish. How many parking spaces
are you going to be picking up?
Mr. Boumaroun: About 17 to 18 parking spaces.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Bolda, the building that we are talking about being demolished.
Do you currently own that or do you have a contingent purchase
agreement?
Mr. Bolda: Not at this time. We are working on that right now. We don't own
it right now.
Mr. Morrow: You don't physically own it anc, you don't have a contingency?
Mr. Bolda: We do have a purchase agreement based on the approval of this
waiver.
Mr. Alanskas: If this is approved, when did you plan on starting with this?
Mr. Boumaroun: As soon as possible. As soon as we finish the process of going
before the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Alanskas: Once you start construction, are you talking two to three months?
Mr. Boumaroun: Five weeks at the most.
Mr. Alanskas: When I was there Monday in the back of the building you had some
cars parked at an angle. When those cars are parked there how can
a semi get through?
Mr. Boumaroun: Parking back there is not going to be angle parking. It is going
to be parallel parking.
12925
Mr. LaPine: On the north side of Morlock when I was out there on Sunday, there
were five cars parked there and they weren't for the place across
the street. Are these cars parked by people using the restaurant.
Mr. Bolda: United Rental allows our employees to park there and our customers.
Mr. Nagy: It is not counted as meeting their off-street parking.
Mrs. Fandrei: Morlock and the area just behind the property, which is part of the
street, you have quite a bit of parking in that area don't you?
Mr. Bolda: Occasionally.
Mrs. Fandrei: Is that going to be landscaped like it should be?
Mr. Bolda: It is beyond our property lines.
Mrs. Fandrei: To the staff, wouldn't that normally be required to be landscaped
to have grass?
Mr. Nagy: The right-of-way immediately adjoining their property is required
to be landscaped.
Mr. Boumaroun: I thought you were talking about the property beyond our property
line.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am and he is saying that it is to be landscaped, the City
right-of-way just like in the front. It is to be landscaped and
not used for parking.
Mr. Boumaroun: We don't show it as parking.
Mrs. Fandrei: No but that is what it is because it is not landscaped. My
objective is to get it landscaped.
Mr. Boumaroun: That is fine.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against this proposal.
Brian Silvernail, 20404 Fremont: I talked to John a couple of hours ago about the
restaurant. I must have misunderstood him because he told me they
would be 7 parking spaces short instead of 17, and there is no way
that you can drive a semi around that building to get out on the
north side because they have parking there. When I talked to John
tonight he told me exactly what Mr. LaPine said. He said the
semi's would have to back in or back out onto Middlebelt.
Mr. Engebretson: Does that utility pole have to be moved.
Mr. Bolda: Yes.
Mr. Silvernail: At the northwest corner of that restaurant there is no way they can
make that turn because they have angle parking right there. Brenda
12926
brought up about Morlock. That driveway is not supposed to be
there. In 1980 when they resurfaced our road Ram's Horn had an
apron poured there and for three months they left bumper blocks and
then they disappeared and they have been using it and that is my
biggest contention. I live on Lot 15 and about a month ago my car
'4%11. got missed by about 4 feet. There have been 17 police calls there
in the last 4 months. I understand it is the bar rush. If there
would be some permanent way like landscaping it to keep them from
using the driveway.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you referring to the exit onto Morlock?
Mr. Silvernail: Yes. That is a major problem. Sometimes we have to call the
Police because we can't get out of our own driveway.
Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like you are opposed to it.
Mr. Silvernail: I have to talk some more to John about this but definitely
something has to be done about Morlock.
Mr. McCann: If we had landscaping up and down Morlock and whatever blocks or
trees put along that right-of-way to make it permanent, would you
be in favor of the petition?
Mr. Silvernail: I would have to talk to John some more about the parking and see
the actual plans. Like I said he told me they would be 7 parking
spaces short not 17. We came home Sunday night at 11:30 and we
almost couldn't get down our side street because there were all
kinds of cars parked on both sides.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. LaPine and I were there during the noon rush on Sunday and
there were lots of empty places in the parking lot and no cars
parked in the street. We were actually surprised. We were
expecting to see them down on Morlock.
Mr. Silvernail: The power was off on Sunday.
Mr. Engebretson: They were operating at about 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Silvernail: Come by at 2:30 in the morning.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, we seem to have a debate on the semi's going down that
back area. Has our staff looked at that to see if they would fit?
I had a hard time getting my car through there.
Mr. Nagy: If the angle parking on the north side of the building is in fact
occupied by cars, semi's will not be able to make that swing. If
they can schedule those delivery trucks for non-peak times so the
full area is available, then they could make that turn.
Gail Silvernail: I am the other property owner of Lot 15. I have a real problem
with more people coming to this restaurant, making more seats,
serving more people. I spoke in front of you before about the
problem they have. They do not have adequate restroom area. It
12927
never fails in the summertime when my windows are open my dog goes
crazy. I go to let her out and there is a male out there urinating
behind United Rental. I don't appreciate that. Secondly, the
problem with the drunks coming after bar rush. I have a lawn
ornament. It is a old fashioned pump. I was awakened one night
with gentlemen from the parking lot yelling at a man "You're not
going to get any water out of that pump". I have children that
sleep on that side of the house. I don't need them woke up at that
time of the night. I don't want to deal with that. One of the
police calls resulted in a high speed chase through our
neighborhood. That is not a comfortable thought for me. One of
the vehicles missed our car by about three feet. Deliveries -
There are deliveries when I go to work at 6:30 in the morning. I
contacted City Hall and they told me rubbish was not supposed to be
picked up before 7:00 a.m. if the property backs up to a
residential area. The rubbish is picked up anywhere between 5:00
a.m. and 6:30 a.m. Another unpleasant thing to wake up to.
Parking against United Rental. I don't see where United Rental can
give you permission to park there because first of all that is City
property and secondly most of them are their employees that park
there. They are blocking the sidewalk. My children cannot get
down that sidewalk to walk up Middlebelt. We have got to walk in
the street. Another hazard to my children. I don't appreciate
that. Also, we have, and I know you have no control over this, at
least three times a week we have beer trucks pulling in and parking
on both sides of the street to have breakfast. I realize you have
no control over that but in order to make that turn on our street
the semi's are backing up and at this point in time we have 17 kids
in our short block, all outside playing and semi's are backing down
the street. Another uncomfortable feeling. As far as percentage
of the customers that come off that side drive he says 107. I beg
to differ, I would say 45%. I am out in my yard with my children a
lot. There is non-stop traffic either going into the restaurant or
coming out. I don't see where landscaping is going to help. Maybe
if we could get "No Restaurant Parking" signs on both sides of the
street that would help. I don't know but I am opposed to making
the restaurant larger. I have spoken with someone about the
rubbish problem. The people who empty their garbage don't always
make it into the dumpster. It blows into my yard and I have to
clean it up. The same thing with the garbage truck. When they
dump it in, it all winds up in my yard. More customers, more
rubbish, more work for me to pick up their garbage. I am highly
opposed to having more customers and a larger building in this
area.
Bob Tanaglia, 20322 Fremont: I would like to say that if they could keep their
business on Middlebelt, like it was originally designed for, I
think everybody would agree that they would have no problem with
this. Eight Mile/Middlebelt, all these small industrials are
gradually more and more encroaching onto the residential and that
is a problem. There is more and more traffic. If the side street
could be blocked, no one would have any problem with that but they
can't do that. Also, the main thing is they say they are 17
parking spots short. That is quite a bit. They were short before
12928
and it is going to be one parking spot less. That is the issue.
It is not legitimate. They don't have enough parking. This is why
all the problems are resulting. I hope the small increase of taxes
that may be levied upon the Ram's Horn, won't justify or change any
*4111• decisions because the small increase they might pay in their taxes,
our residential property will go the other way and it already has.
There is a house next door that they can't sell it behind the Ram's
Horn. My house is next to that. I feel everybody in the
neighborhood has the same problem.
Mr. Boumaroun: It seems that one of the biggest problems is with the trash and
with the new design the trash will be enclosed with trees around it
and therefore hopefully that will solve the problem. Also, the
site plan shows we are closing that entrance to the parking lot and
if you need us to show some landscaping there, we would be more
than happy to do that.
Mr. Tent: To the architect, on your floor plan the lady had a valid point
when she indicated the restroom facilities. They are enlarging the
restaurant and you will have more people. Do you have any
intention in your new development to provide larger restrooms?
Mr. Boumaroun: We have submitted floor plans showing the bathrooms meeting the new
code.
Mr. Tent: How does that differ from what is there now?
Mr. Boumaroun: It is about four times the size.
r Vince Coppala: I live across the street from my neighbors here. He said he was
'tagoing to close the north Morlock entrance and they said the trucks
would exit on Fargo.
Mr. LaPine: They are going to exit on Middlebelt. There are going to be two
entrances on Middlebelt now instead of three. The Morlock exit
will be closed off completely so the trucks will not drive out onto
Morlock.
Mr. Coppala: That will not be an easy thing to get onto Middlebelt.
Mr. Engebretson: Tell us again the pattern of a beer delivery truck coming in to
your property. Where are they going to enter and where are they
going to exit.
Mr. Boumaroun: They will enter on the south entrance, go behind the building and
exit on the north entrance on Middlebelt.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess I stand corrected. Mr. LaPine is right. That entrance
on Morlock will be closed off. There won't be any opportunity for
anyone to take access to or from your property except from
Middlebelt Road.
Mr. Boumaroun: That is correct.
12929
Mr. Coppala: I think they should have some kind of security because like my
neighbor said the drunks coming in, they go crazy in the
neighborhood. I think they should have some kind of security.
They could cut down on this trouble.
\r.
Mr. Engebretson: What are your hours?
Mr. Bolda: We are open 24 hours.
Mr. Coppala: That is why they should have some security guards. Most places do
and you should have one. I don't have any little kids living there
now but we do have a lot of kids in the neighborhood.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, did we get a traffic report from the Traffic Bureau
concerning this location?
Mr. Nagy: The Traffic Officer in charge of the Traffic Bureau, Mr. Cheney,
indicates as stated in my letter of June 25, 1993, the provided
parking is not enough for the stated capacity.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-5-2-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#7-147-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 27,
1993 on Petition 93-5-2-13 by John Bolda, Ram's Horn Restaurant,
requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating
capacity of an existing restaurant located on the west side of
Middlebelt Road between Morlock and Norfolk Avenues in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-5-2-13 be approved subject to the granting
of a variance for a deficient number of off-street parking spaces by the
Zoning Board of Appeals and to the following additional conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, Sheet S-1 dated 5-5-93, as revised, prepared by
Technical Group Inc. , Architects which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevations, Sheet A-2 dated 7-1-93 by Technical
Group Inc. , Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered
to.
3) That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval within thirty days of the date of this resolution.
4) That the rooftop mechanical units shall be screened from public
view.
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 as modified by the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
12930
2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposal will provide for a substantial upgrading of the
mo• subject site and building.
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. Tent: To the maker of the resolution and to the staff, the Morlock
entrance which Mrs. Fandrei brought up about the landscaping, will
that be part of the call back of the landscape plan?
Mr. Nagy: Yes very definitely.
Mr. Tent: As far as the turnaround for the trucks, that will be incorporated
in the site plan?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: Just a comment as to why I supported the resolution. Whether we
act here tonight favorably or not favorably, the use will still be
there and I am certainly sympathetic to the concerns the neighbors
had. I think some of the things they committed to will resolve
some of their concerns but I don't say they will resolve all of
them. They do have some more off-street parking. We, in fact,
have the same thing we have now as far as a deficiency. However,
we do have more off-street parking. I don't know if that will
,,ftl, affect the number of customers they will get with the expansion
though we have an opportunity to get more off the street. I think
we have an opportunity to move forward and hopefully cure some, if
not all, of the concerns the neighbors have, particularly as it
relates to trash, the hours of picking it up, the closing of the
Morlock entrance. If the petitioner could be more sympathetic to
their neighbors as far as activities in the off hours. I know you
have a successful business. Hopefully this will clear up some of
the concerns not only for the neighbors but for the City.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am delighted to see you have the kind of business you can expand
but I feel very strongly that this is overdevelopment of the
property. In the years I have been on this Commission and the ZBA
that is all I have heard is how it has spilled over into the
neighbors. I don't feel expanding on this piece of property is
appropriate.
Mr. LaPine: When I originally looked at this parcel I had probably made up my
mind I was going to vote for it but I have changed my position here
this evening. When they came before us two to three years ago, at
that time I think I made the statement that maybe they have
outlived that location. You have done a good job there. You have
expanded and have a good business but you just do not have a big
enough area. You are going in the right direction by buying the
building next door and demolishing it and putting parking there but
12931
by expanding the restaurant with additional seating, we haven't
really solved the problem. We are right back where we were before.
We have deficient parking. If the expansion of the restaurant
wasn't adding as many seats as you are adding, I might be more
"'w inclined to go along with this proposal but the way it is right now
I just feel I cannot vote for it.
Mr. Engebretson: I too want to speak in opposition to the approving resolution for
the reasons mentioned by Mrs. Fandrei and Mr. LaPine. While it is
very tempting to be supportive here because of the very nice
enhancement that you are making to the physical building, I agree
that there will be an increase in patronage, an increase in traffic
and an increase in the business factor in the area. I believe if
you were truly good corporate neighbors you would buy that building
next door to the Ram's Horn, demolish it and close off the Morlock
entrance as indicated here and utilize that space to the south for
the parking that you need without infringing on the rights of the
neighbors, which from their testimony here tonight happens on a
regular basis. What you are asking for is to dress up a building,
make a successful business even more successful and increase the
business factor in the community. I would suggest that a proper
approach here would be to do as I indicated. Buy the building,
knock it down, expand your parking, come in compliance with the
ordinance like 99% of all the other business owners in Livonia do.
Then if things go well and it turns out that the problems in the
neighborhood have been mitigated by the changes that you have made,
then consider an expansion but at a time when we are confident that
everybody's peace and tranquility is not disturbed beyond what it
already is.
Nor
Mr. McCann: I agree with what everybody has said so far. What I do like about
this plan is it does close off Morlock, it creates more parking, it
puts the garbage to the back. Unfortunately a lot of the things
the neighbors complained about are not going to change no matter
what they do. It is part of the problems with living next to a
restaurant that has a 24-hour operation, such as Ram's Horn. I
think it may be too intense. I think they may be asking for too
many seats. What I do like is the site plan. I like closing it
off. I like the additional landscaping. I like the way it looks.
It is my duty to see if the site plan conforms. The site plan I
see up there I like. I think it is too many seats but that is a
question for the ZBA and I am going to send it on to them to
determine what variance, if any, will be given to them and if they
feel 17 seats is proper I don't know. Therefore, I think I am
inclined to approve the building site plan and leave it up to the
ZBA to determine how many spots, if any, they will give them for
deficient parking.
Mr. Engebretson: I would suggest to the petitioner that no matter what happens
here tonight you give serious consideration to the issue of a
security guard at those late hours. I think you owe that to those
neighbors, and while you can't be responsible for what people do
once they leave your property, the fact of the matter is the only
reason they are in that neighborhood is because your restaurant is
there.
12932
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: Fandrei, LaPine, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
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 93-6-2-14
by M & N Corporation Limited requesting waiver use approval to utilize
an SDM license for a proposed store to be located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Rensellor and Antago Boulevards in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this rezoning petition. They do state
that Seven Mile Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent
in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. We have
also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their
department has no objection to the site plan as submitted. We have
also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they
have no objection to this proposal.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Shane, you mention in our notes that there are 8 existing SDM
licenses in a one mile radius. Was that including what might be on
`.. the Redford side?
Mr. Shane: No. Just in Livonia.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, being the petitioner is not the owner of the property,
did the staff request the owner of the property to be present at
our meeting?
Mr. Nagy: Yes we did.
Mr. Tent: Why isn't he here?
Mr. Nagy: I am not sure he is not.
Mr. Tent: I am making a point and I want it to go into the record. Mr.
Oliver was requested to appear at the meeting. If our notes are
correct he indicated he will not attend any City meetings and
furthermore he has no intention of making improvements which are
not needed. I don't want this to follow the original petition when
the petitioner wasn't here. In this case while the petitioner is
here he is not the owner. I just wanted to make this point in the
record why he isn't here and that we did request him.
Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner is here ready to present his case.
12933
Joe Eadeh, 8527 Sanford, Westland: I want to speak on behalf of the petitioner,
Mr. Nawwas. We don't know about the owner, what is going on with
him. The petitioner has made sufficient changes inside the
building and cooperated with all City ordinances. What we would
like to do is make sure and let you know he is not going to be a
beer and wine store. It is an Italian bakery and deli. He will
not be opening up late hours. He will not be competing with
Seven/Eleven. If somebody wanted beer and wine they probably would
go to Seven/Eleven. What he wants to do is just make it convenient
for his customers when they walk into his store to buy fresh pasta,
which a lot of people cook with wine. Also, the petitioner lives
in Livonia so he is not coming from another city and doesn't care
about the city. He really cares about the city. He has been in
the food business for a long time. He is the Executive Chef at
Burton Manor also.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Eadeh, just a couple of questions. I recognize that some of
the things we want to talk about you won't be able to answer
because the owner is not here. I see there is quite a bit of
activity within the building so is this the type of use that could
support itself without the beer and wine?
Mr. Nawwas: Not really.
Mr. Morrow: Have you signed your lease with this gentleman?
Mr. Nawwas: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Were you aware of our ordinance that says we should not have beer
and wine within 500 feet of an existing one and as the staff
indicated we have a number of them?
Mr. Nawwas: No.
Mr. Morrow: To the staff, I noticed the awning is already in place. Does that
meet the ordinance as far as the signage? Did the staff have a
chance to look at that?
Mr. Nagy: It is my understanding they received a permit for that.
Mr. Morrow: It just looked a little large to me for the size of the building.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I do think we should raise the question as to whether
or not that awning is appropriate not only with regard to the size
of the awning but the size of the lettering on the awning. It
appeared to be excessive and furthermore it is a white awning with
fluorescent tubes underneath and that goes in the face of what we
have been trying to accomplish with regard to turning an awning
into a sign. Either we are on a different wave length there or
maybe we are ahead of ourselves.
Mr. Morrow: We could see what the permit said.
Mr. Engebretson: The permit is in the window. Mr. LaPine and I were able to read
that permit. It was duly authorized but I would like to suggest
12934
that we go to the Building Department to cite those particular
points of concern because at the very minimum we may want to deal
with the lighting issue. The awning is out. There is not a lot we
can do about the signage but if the signage is non-complying, then
there is some work to do on this.
Mr. LaPine: In that respect too John when you talk to the Building/Inspection
Department, Hungry Howie's right next door has moved from across
the street and that sign should come down. I really have a
problem. I can sympathize with you but before I could really even
consider approving your request, there are problems on that
property. There are bumper stops laying on the sidewalk. There
needs to be some work done on the property and that is why we like
to have the property owner here to get him to do the things that
have to be done because it not only reflects on him but it reflects
on your business. On the other hand, I also have a problem with
all the liquor licenses in the area. There is only so much
business for beer and wine and the more of these licenses you give
out and the more they are in close proximity to each other, the
less business everybody gets and before you know it, we are going
to have some empty stores because they can't make it.
Unfortunately, you went ahead and signed a lease without knowing
the proper procedures to go through, things you should have known.
You shouldn't have signed the lease unless it was contingent upon
the fact you got your SDM license. It puts us all in an awkward
position. The property is not in that bad of shape but it does
need some work on it. The overriding thing in the way I look at it
is we have all these licenses within a one mile radius. How many
more can we have? For that reason I just can't see any real reason
r4111. to approve this petition.
Mr. Alanskas: Seeing you are the head chef at Burton Manor, I have had many, many
times to be there and to taste the fine food that you make and I
can't believe if you did not have a beer and wine license that you
could not make a go of it. With so many in that area, even if you
had a license, I don't think you would get that much revenue from
it being there. My position is having eight in that area is just
too many. I think what you want to put in there is unique and I
think you would make a go of it. As far as the beer and wine
license, I am sorry I cannot go with that.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, regarding that abandoned sign of Hungry Howie's, whose
responsibility is it to remove that sign?
Mr. Nagy: The owner.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you please inform the proper department within the City
then to ask that they give him advice as to what he needs to do
there.
Mr. Nawwas: I asked for the license for the convenience of the customer.
Mr. Tent: When you signed a lease, for how many years is it?
Mr. Nawwas: Five years.
12935
Mr. Tent: That is not contingent upon the fact that you get a beer and wine
license. Is that correct?
Mr. Nawwas: Correct.
'Nifty
Mr. Tent: I feel as my fellow Commissioners feel that while this would be a
good store, it probably would succeed but there are so many
improvements that have to be done on the existing part of the
building that should be addressed by the owner and he is not here
to address that. That bothers me. If you were in a position to
purchase the building and were the owner and were in a position to
say I am going to correct all these things, then I would be more
favorable towards this use of the property. The other thing is the
beer and wine license. There are so many in the immediate area
that if you could succeed or go on without it, I would prefer
that. I can't support this petition based on what I said.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal?
Nick Canzano, 27435 Seven Mile Road: I own the Seven/Eleven store at the corner of
Seven Mile and Inkster. I am about 350 feet from this proposed SDM
establishment. I want to point one thing out here. As the
Commission has pointed out, there are eight existing SDM within a
one mile radius of this corner in Livonia and as Mrs. Fandrei has
asked, what about Redford? If you go east about three-quarters of
a mile on Seven Mile, there will be six SDM/SDD licenses. This
doesn't make sense. Clearly we have plenty of places to buy beer
and wine in that neighborhood. In addition to another five within
low a one mile radius of Livonia. We have plenty of places to buy beer
and wine. I don't think we are doing the community any service by
adding another one. We would be clearly oversaturated. The only
thing we would achieve here would be to dilute the existing market
share of the stores that are there as Mr. LaPine pointed out. I
would strongly urge this Commission to recommend against this. Not
that I don't want the market there because I am not against that.
The Italian market is a great idea. I don't think that would
interfere with anything but the SDM I am highly opposed to.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-6-2-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-148-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 27,
1993 on Petition 93-6-2-14 by M & N Corporation Limited requesting
waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license for a proposed store to be
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Rensellor and
Antago Boulevards in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
93-6-2-14 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 as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
12936
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 10.03 which
requires a 500 foot separation between facilities utilizing SDM
licenses.
- 3) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
4) That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDM licensed
facilities in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-6-2-15
by Grand Rental Station requesting waiver use approval for outdoor
display of rental equipment on property located on the west side of
Wayne Road between Plymouth Road and Elmira Avenue in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 33.
Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
— stating they have no objections to this proposal; however, they
would like to point out that this property has a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking. Also in our file is
a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating no left turn signs should
be placed at the driveway due to double left turns from westbound
Plymouth to southbound Wayne and high speed double left turn from
northbound Wayne Road to westbound Plymouth Road. Also in our file
is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objection to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us your reasons
for this request.
George LaForest, 44500 Woodland Park, Northville: We are trying to get permission
to do this. We thought we could do it in the beginning to show our
store is open and to highlight certain types of equipment, etc.
The people just across the street from us have the florist shop and
they display many types of flowers and stands, etc. We would
restrict the number of pieces in front of the store to about four
small pieces on each side of the door. This would be done only
during business hours. Basically that is about it.
Mr. McCann: It struck me, maybe it is the devil in me, but your comparison was
the flower shop displays flowers in the front of their store, a
port-a-john factory, should they be entitled to put port-a-johns in
12937
front of their store? I think there is a difference. I have to
commend you. I drove by there the other day. You have done a nice
job with that new addition but I am not yet convinced and that is
what this public hearing is for. I just wanted to reflect on your
comment. That is not sufficient to convince me yet.
Mr. LaForest: We obviously want to keep it in good taste for our own self
interest. Since you sent a notification to various neighbors,
several have stopped by and said they have no problem with it.
They actually gave us support. I haven't heard an adverse comment
from anybody. We want the business to succeed so we can maintain
the property.
Mr. McCann: Did you provide a specific site plan of the area where you want to
do it?
Mr. LaForest: Yes I did.
The site plan was presented.
Mr. Engebretson: We also want you to succeed. Do you have any evidence of that
support from your neighbors?
Mr. LaForest: I didn't ask for anything.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. LaForest, my notes say the Commercial Lawnmower facility owned
by Mr. LaForest has displayed equipment outside and continues to do
so with violations from the Ordinance Department.
4,11, Mr. LaForest: We have been displaying them in front of the store for 15 years and
haven't had any objections.
Mr. Alanskas: When you get the violation what happens? Do you just pay the fine?
Mr. LaForest: We have never paid a fine. We have never received a violation.
Mr. Alanskas: You have never received a violation?
Mr. LaForest: Not that I know of.
Mr. Engebretson: That is a separate issue. That is another business he owns
around the corner.
Mr. Alanskas: He is asking for the same thing, outside display of equipment.
Mr. Engebretson: Well if he is successful here he will probably come back and seek
approval for that.
Mr. LaForest: We have never had a violation issued that I know of. I would not
ignore a violation for 15 years.
Mrs. Fandrei: I also have the same concern. It doesn't feel good to say go ahead
and display your wares when our notes say the Ordinance Enforcement
Division has been issuing violations. I guess I would want the
staff to check this out.
12938
Mr. Shane: I discussed it with Ordinance Enforcement and they indicated to me
they gave him notice of his violation. Whether it was in writing I
am not sure but they indicated they had notified Mr. LaForest it
was an illegal use from time to time.
'tor
Mr. LaForest: I don't actually operate the business. I own the building but we
have no records of that. At least I certainly don't.
Mr. Engebretson: We could check that out.
Mr. Nagy: Notices of violations are public documents and can be verified.
Mr. Engebretson: If we take action here tonight and have second thoughts based on
the discovery of something like that, obviously we always have the
opportunity to reverse our action.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Nagy, do any of our rental shops have a waiver for outdoor
display of their rental equipment?
Mr. Nagy: Yes they do.
Mr. Morrow: Could you tell me which ones they are? Would that be possible?
Mr. Nagy: Suburban Rental at Five Mile and Paderewski, which is an utility
trailer establishment.
Mr. Morrow: The reason I ask when I was site checking the Ram's Horn there were
a couple of rental shops there and the whole front yard was full of
display. If they do not have a waiver, we have an enforcement
problem within the City. That is my concern. If we are not going
to enforce the ordinance, why are we going through it tonight? The
thing is you have to do business within the building you built. We
are not trying to work a hardship. I just think it is a bad
precedent to start issuing these waivers to allow this because it
is a domino effect. That is where I am coming from.
Mr. Tent: I agree with Mr. Morrow because this falls into the same thing as
the sign ordinance where we have an ordinance and we can't enforce
it. We have an ordinance here we should enforce. In other words,
if we have the rules, we should have everybody live by them. If
they aren't adequate, we should change them. In this particular
case if it doesn't meet the ordinance, we should go on with our
business.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. LaForest do you have anything else to add?
Mr. LaForest: All I can say is we would obviously limit ourselves to the number
of pieces that we have asked for here and no more.
Mr. Engebretson: Before we close this public hearing I would like to take this
opportunity to ask you how you are coming along with Phase 2, 3 and
4 of the things that you submitted?
Mr. LaForest: The only thing that is left over there is the paving behind the
12939
multi-state building and we are trying to decide on a couple of
options right now on the possibility of expanding that building
for warehouse space or using outside warehouse space for
Commercial Lawnmower. We will get back to you shortly. We are
`r. trying to get it all resolved.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-6-2-15 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#7-149-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 27,
1993 on Petition 93-6-2-15 by Grand Rental Station requesting waiver use
approval for outdoor display of rental equipment on property located on
the west side of Wayne Road between Plymouth Road and Elmira Avenue in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-6-2-15 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 will overburden the site with additional uses
which will interfere with the normal operation of the existing
uses.
3) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
`r. the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to speak against the denying resolution. I think the
proposal is reasonable. There are other waiver uses from
competitors that give them competitive advantage if this operator
isn't allowed to do this. They are not interfering with any
pedestrian traffic. I think if they confine their activity to the
eight walk-behind machines, it would be enough to attract attention
to the fact that their business is there and open. They did a
wonderful job on building a nice attractive building and I think
they deserve the opportunity to make the most of it.
Mr. Tent: I would like to challenge the Chairman. I am the maker of the
motion and I feel we have ordinances in the City that should be
adhered to and if the ordinances aren't followed, we should change
them, and in this particular case it was brought out they do have
various violations here with the City and nothing is being done to
correct them. At this particular point I recognize the fact that
the petitioner has done a fine job at this location but also he is
not complying with the ordinance so if we are going to take
exceptions to individuals, that is not our policy. That is our
job. If there is any appeal, they go to another board. That is
why I made this recommendation.
12940
Mr. Engebretson: I understand Mr. Tent. I would just remind you that the Ram's
Horn didn't meet the ordinance either.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure we know what we are doing
err. here. When I brought up the fact about Mr. LaForest and Commercial
Lawnmower, this petition here is Grand Rental Station and they
actually don't have anything to do with each other even though he
is the owner and what he wants to do here is very minute and small
and I will favor the petition. However, I would hope with
Commercial Lawnmower, you have so much out in front that you would
look into that and check with Mr. Murphy on violations. What you
want to do here I have no problem with that.
Mr. McCann: I told you I was fairly open on this when I came in but looking at
those pictures, it took me about three minutes of staring at them
before I realized what I didn't like. I kept looking for some
greenery around the front of the building. When I looked behind
the machines, I could see that you had planted a number of bushes
and it looks nice. The problem is the City ordinance is there for
the growth of the City and what you are asking, I don't know if it
is that excessive, it is just we are trying to create an image in
Livonia, trying to clean up some of the things that were around,
that are grandfathered in and by giving these variances I believe
we are defeating the purpose of what we are trying to do. I know
when K-Mart came we we started limiting them. They always had
things outside and we said no you can't do it. Different companies
were doing it and my feeling at this point is this is a new
business, you have a lovely new building that people will be able
to spot. I don't think it is absolutely necessary. I think people
,,ow are going to know you for your reputation and for your sign.
Mr. LaForest: We put the landscaping there plus we put in flats of flowers by the
street. I think the landscaping looks very good. We tried to
dress it up and keep it maintained. We have even gone to the
extent of maintaining Pearle Vision next door which we don't own.
We cut their lawns, trim their shrubs and weed their beds for no
charge just to try and dress up that whole corner. It is in our
interest. I will grant that. As I said the landscaping looks
better over there than it did six months ago before we took over
that corner.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Fandrei, Morrow, McCann
NAYS: LaPine, Alanskas, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
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 93-7-2-16
by the Loyal Order of Moose / 1317 requesting waiver use approval to
utilize a club license in conjunction with a proposed Moose Lodge to be
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Garden
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36.
12941
Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
;'er► they have no problems with this waiver use. We have also received
a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the
following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The
non-conforming pole sign should be removed entirely. 2. The public
sidewalk should be replaced with concrete. 3. All landscape areas
should be replaced. 4. The roof needs repair, particularly in the
southwest corner. The bracket from the old roof sign should be
removed. 5. The two damaged light poles should be removed from the
rear lot. 6. The protective wall needs to be repainted. Also in
our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the center
parking spaces should be 10' x 20' , not 9' x 17' . Also in our file
is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter
Sheldon Fuller of Sheldon Real Estate stating he wishes to voice
his approval as owner of the building at 29087 Plymouth Road, in
Livonia, regarding the Loyal Order of Moose #1317 in requesting
waiver approval to utilize a club license in conjunction with the
Lodge.
Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner appears to be at the podium.
Martin Testasecca: I am the attorney for the petitioner. My business address is
33110 Grand River, Farmington. Accompanying me is Governor of the
Moose Lodge, Larry Meloche and David Grumbache, the Chairman of
their Building Committee. Pursuant to a request from the Michigan
"an,. Liquor Control Commission, we are seeking to transfer the Club C
Liquor License that they have right now located at 12800 Merriman
Road. The county is seeking to raise the building they are
currently occupying so they have to seek another home. They have
enjoyed 25 years in Livonia and wanted to stay in Livonia, and as
part of the purchase agreement they signed in March, we are trying
to obtain ownership via land contract of this building located at
29087 Plymouth Road. In applying for the transfer of the liquor
license, the Police Department and the City Council and the
Planning Commission are all involved. We are here to answer any of
your questions. Basically, they want to occupy this premise late
in the fall. As you know, the Moose is a private fraternal
organization and they do not intend to use this building as any
public facility. The traffic of the membership, at any given time
there are 282 members, satisfies the 40 some parking spaces on the
site. They plan to do a number of things aesthetically to improve
the appearance of the outside of the building, which you are very
concerned about. With regard to the Inspection Department's six
requirements, we take issue with some of them as the owner, Mr.
Fuller, and the purchasers want to comply with any City
requirements and make the building useful and aesthetic and at
least stay there for longer than most of the tenants previous to
it.
Mrs. Fandrei: You answered one of my questions and that was how many Moose were
moving.
12942
Mr. Testasecca: There is only a membership of 282 but at any given time there are
not more than 30 to 40 people that would occupy the building.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is the other question. Do you do dinners and that type of
'guy thing?
Mr. Testasecca: We have no plans right now to have kitchen facilities on sight
other than a grill maybe at the end of the bar for hamburgers and
other sandwiches. There is no kitchen. There are no plans to have
food service available.
Mrs. Fandrei: The alcohol is just for consumption while they meet?
Mr. Testasecca: Exactly and for whatever other functions they might plan.
Mrs. Fandrei: Like what?
Mr. Meloche: Occasionally we put on a steak dinner.
Mrs. Fandrei: How do you do that without a kitchen?
Mr. Meloche: Where we are now we do it on grills in the back. The only thing we
are thinking about putting in now is a grill. We are not going in
the restaurant business.
Mrs. Fandrei: Just light things for your members?
Mr. Meloche: Yes.
"ter Mr. Tent: Mr. Testasecca, I am pleased to know that the Moose are going to
buy that property because that was one of my concerns whether they
were going to lease it as is. I have seen the site. The extent of
the remodeling. I don't know what your budget is and by the way I
am happy that the Moose are going to locate back in Livonia and it
is a fine organization. Is there anything in your budget where you
can tear down that building and put another one up? It is really
in bad shape and I hope you can meet all the requirements that the
Inspection Department had because that is going to be a challenge.
Mr. Testasecca: It is currently unsightly but the money the organization has can
satisfy internal as well as external aesthetics.
Mr. Tent: No bingo?
Mr. Testasecca: That is not big enough for bingo.
Mr. Tent: That was my question. I looked at the property. I didn't look at
the inside but I was surprised when I saw the outside, the shape of
the building, etc. but you are aware of that, you know what has to
be done.
Mr. Testasecca: We have worked with both the Police Department and everybody is an
interior decorator. One thing that is important to know is I think
it is beneficial for the organization that the entrance to the
12943
building right now is currently on Plymouth Road and they are
blocking that off and there is an entrance at the back so the
public will not be seeing the membership coming and going. There
are windows in the back. The Police Department has suggested how
`41411. they can impair the visibility so people don't look in. They do
want to make it functional for the organization.
Mr. Engebretson: Who is going to pay for all these improvements to bring that
building into compliance with all the ordinances?
Mr. Testasecca: That is a good question. As a matter of fact I have placed a
contingency into the offer to purchase that the temporary
Certificate of Occupancy is borne at the cost of the seller and he
is going to get a long letter from me tomorrow outlining these
things. We have discussed some of these things. It is a workable
situation.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, there is such a great renovation that has to be done on
this building, is there any site plan required on it?
Mr. Nagy: Yes there is.
Mr. LaPine: Will we have a look at that site plan?
Mr. Nagy: Yes you will.
Mr. LaPine: I have no big problem with them having a liquor license but I would
like to see some plans before I voted on something. I would like
to see what is actually going to happen to that parcel. In my
`"` opinion, I was out to the site, this building is in horrible shape.
I looked inside the window and the floor is all busted up. One end
of the building looks like it is going to fall down any minute.
You are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars, in my opinion, to
fix up this building. I don't see how else you can do it. The
other thing I am worried about is in your old location you did not
abut any residential property and I noticed the number of times you
used to have functions on the outside of that building. Here you
abut residential neighborhoods. Right behind you is a subdivision.
The gentleman who is head of the organization talked about have
steak outs. Those types of things are fine if they are handled
properly. You also have to remember you have a residential
neighbors that may object to the noise back there. Another thing,
could you give me a little background? I know nothing about this
organization. Are you a charitable organization, a fraternal
organization? What do you do? Can I get a rundown of what is
actually going to be here?
Mr. Meloche: We are a fraternal organization. We do things for orphan children.
For the Livonia community we have done functions for the D.A.R.E.
program. We have raised money for Special Olympics, Walk For
Mankind.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have any plans for the front of the building. It is all
glass because it was a restaurant. Is that all going to be
Now removed? What is going to happen?
12944
Mr. Grumbache: We went to the Livonia Police Department and took their
recommendations. Basically 14 of the glass you see right now will
be blocked and painted the color of the building. It will have to
be reinforced because the Police Department has recommended that
`, the glass should not have access for people to see in. They
recommend this for security purposes. What we want to do is make
it much like the color of the building so it all becomes one color.
This was their recommendation, either that or brick.
Mr. LaPine: When did the Police Department start telling us how to renovate a
building?
Mr. Nagy: The site was reviewed in connection with their application to
transfer the license. When they appear before the City Council to
transfer the license from their existing location on Merriman to
this location, there is a Police Department review and that was in
connection with the license and not in connection with this land
use decision of waiver use. It was in connection with the transfer
of the license itself.
Mr. LaPine: Is that something they said painting the window?
Mr. Nagy: I am not qualified to speak for the Police Department's interest.
Mr. LaPine: What else are you planning on doing?
Mr. Grumbache: Somebody said they had seen the broken up floors. There is
currently a plumber going in there just to check up on the old
plumbing so that is why the floors are broken up. It is only a
temporary situation.
Mr. LaPine: Plumbing for what?
Mr. Grumbache: The plumbing is shot. He is putting in a new drain system. In
addition, a lot of the walls were temporary walls. A lot of those
walls will be removed. I do have an overhead if you would like to
see it.
Mr. LaPine: How about all the booths?
Mr. Grumbache: They are gone.
Mr. LaPine: I notice on this plan you submitted, I assume this is a bar with
bar stools?
Mr. Grumbache: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: What is the big area?
Mr. Grumbache: There will be tables and chairs in that area and I would imagine a
small area for entertainment.
Mr. LaPine: How many days a week do you meet?
12945
Mr. Grumbache: We are open every day and we have one meeting a week, every
Wednesday.
Mr. LaPine: Are you planning on doing anything to the rear?
low
Mr. Grumbache: The rear parking lot will be resealed and restriped. Also we will
do some architectural work in the back corners.
Mr. Alanskas: On your plan you show a proposed kitchen and you said you were not
going to have a kitchen.
Mr. Grumbache: We decided to put a drain system in if we decided to have a kitchen
in the future. We are not planning on having a kitchen right now.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the condition of the rooftop air conditioning and heating
system?
Mr. Grumbache: The air conditioning is inoperative. It is the responsibility of
the seller to get the Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Testasecca: There is a list of conditions the seller has agreed to.
Mr. Alanskas: It looks like it is ready to fall down. Plus it will have to be
screened completely. It is so visible. It has to be screened. Is
he aware of that also?
Mr. Testasecca: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make would be obviously the site is
deficient, and I think you recognize that, as far as the
landscaping, the sign and some of the parking lot. We have those
types of concerns. You have your own concerns with what the
landlord will agree to in order to get that Certificate of
Occupancy, which might not only include some of the things you want
done but some of the things the City might want done so I think it
is important that you, this Commission and subsequently the other
body agree with what it is going to take to get a Certificate of
Occupancy and then see how your landlord feels about that because
what you may feel might not work with what we are doing. We have a
lot of questions. I know you have a lot of good intentions but I
don't see how we can move too much further until we can put it down
on some sort of plan.
Mrs. Fandrei: Have you a plan on how you are going to repaint this building?
Mr. Testasecca showed the Commissioners a sample of the paint.
Mrs. Fandrei: Do you have a color rendering? I think we need to see that.
Mr. Testasecca: We met with Mr. Nagy yesterday and we are revising those plans.
Mrs. Fandrei: So tabling sounds like what we need to do so we can get everything
before us.
12946
Mr. Testasecca: I don't prefer that because the seller is on my back but if that is
what this Commission needs to do, I could get together with your
Planning Department because I would like to give the seller a punch
list of what needs to be accomplished for the Certificate of
Occupancy.
Mr. Tent: Do you have an architect that is working on the proposal?
Mr. . Testasecca: There are a number of people that are working on the aspect of the
building.
Mr. Tent: We have several questions regarding what you are proposing and what
your intent is. We would like to see someone bring in a site plan
showing us a rendering of what the building would look like
complete. You indicated here earlier that the landlord is going
ahead with a lot of the improvements even though you have a
contract subject to, so we hope it does go through. What would it
take for you to have some drawings by some competent architect to
present to our staff so we may review it? We have nothing here.
I, as one Commissioner, couldn't approve this tonight regardless
because there are little bits and pieces that haven't been put
together. I would hope whoever is on your building committee could
get together with someone, contact our staff with your drawings and
how you propose to do things and then I would like to look at it
another time so I think tabling is very much in order at this time.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you say earlier that the fraternal organization basically
operates for the benefit of its members and various charitable
organizations? In other words, could someone come off the street
`" for one of your steak dinners?
Mr. Testasecca: No.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to take this additional opportunity to encourage
you, assuming that this is tabled tonight, and there seems to be a
consensus that is the way it is heading, that you would take
advantage of the opportunity to work with the various City
departments, the Building Department, Inspection Department, etc.
to develop that punch list because while this organization has been
a credible good citizen of our community for a great number of
years, I think if this building weren't so dilapidated, that we
would probably have a totally different view on it, but given the
fact it is in such poor repair and given the cost factor that may
be involved to put it into good repair, our concern is if we
approve a waiver use, which in effect is a zoning action, that runs
with the land. That is a done thing and while the Moose may be the
kind of fraternal organization we want to operate in the community,
if they decided to give up their rights here, there could be a very
undesirable organization that may come in and have an implied right
to seek that kind of operation. I think it is real important that
you understand that the concerns you have heard here tonight have
nothing to do with your organization and the proposal to use that
club license there but it has everything to do with all the
ordinance violations and the general concern about the repairs to
that building. I am not going to itemize all the various concerns
that I have but I could furnish a punch list and I would do it in a
friendly way not to cause you any difficulties.
12947
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-7-2-16 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-150-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 27,
1993 on Petition 93-7-2-16 by the Loyal Order of Moose #1317 requesting
waiver use approval to utilize a club license in conjunction with a
proposed Moose Lodge to be located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Middlebelt and Garden Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition
93-7-2-16 until the next Regular Meeting of August 10, 1993.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-6-6-4
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 2.03 and Articles IV, V, VI and VII of Zoning Ordinance #543
regarding definitions of residential lot frontages.
Mr. Engebretson: This is a proposed change to the Zoning Ordinance that will
address the matter of residential lots that may not have frontage
to a public access street. This comes about as a result of a
`n. matter that was brought up at the Zoning Board of Appeals where
there was a desire to build a residence on a piece of property that
didn't have access so we would like to make sure we don't put
anyone in that position in the future. Since we are the
petitioner, we will go immediately to the audience to see if there
is anyone wishing to speak for or against that proposal.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-6-6-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-151-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 27,
1993 on Petition 93-6-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine
whether or not to amend Section 2.03 and Articles IV, V, VI and VII of
Zoning Ordinance #543 regarding definitions of residential lot
frontages, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-6-6-4 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed amendment is needed so as to clarify a
requirement that all residential lots shall have direct access to a
public street.
12948
2) That the proposed amendment will provide a more clear understanding
of the requirement for access to residential lots.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
{543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 93-6-6-5 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Sections 14.02 and 14.03 of Zoning Ordinance 1#543 to alter the RE
district regulations to make it more compatible to current development
standards.
Mr. Engebretson: By way of further explanation, this came about as a result of a
recent high-tech business that came into the City to propose
occupying land in an Research and Engineering District, and even
though they didn't fit the various categories that are permitted in
that district they were clearly a suitable type of business, so the
staff surveyed our neighboring communities to get a more up-to-date
definition and terminology available to us so we would not be in a
position to prohibit suitable firms from locating in Research and
Engineering zoning districts.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-6-6-5 closed.
'"'°y On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#t7-152-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 27,
1993 on Petition 93-6-6-5 by the City Planning Commission to determine
whether or not to amend Sections 14.02 and 14.03 of Zoning Ordinance
X1543 to alter the RE district regulations to make it more compatible to
current development standards, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-6-6-5 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed amendment will update the uses permitted in the
RE zoning district to today's standards.
2) That the proposed amendment will provide more of an opportunity for
prospective property users to utilize the RE zoning district as it
will provide for uses which are more in keeping with today's market
place.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
11543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
12949
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 that the next item on the agenda is approval of
Now the minutes of the 667th Regular Meeting held on July 13, 1993.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#7-153-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 667th Regular Meeting of the City
Planning Commission held on July 13, 1993 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Fandrei, Morrow
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
10:00 p.m. - Mrs. Fandrei left the meeting at this time.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was authorization to
substitute greenbelt for protective wall in connection with Petition
92-9-2-28 and Sign Permit Application to erect a ground sign by Ford
Motor Land Company, on behalf of the UAW-Ford Child Development Center
located at 38945 Ann Arbor Road in Section 31.
Mr. Shane: You have two issues before you on this piece of property. One is a
sign proposal in connection with this new child day care center
located on Ann Arbor Road. They are proposing a ground sign to be
located right near the front of the property, 10 feet south of the
existing sidewalk and 10 feet west of the driveway. The ground
sign is in compliance with the zoning ordinance. It is 29 square
feet. It will be a sign for UAW-Ford Child Development Center with
an address and a little logo but it is in compliance with the
zoning ordinance. The second issue involved here is in connection
with the site plan itself, which shows a rather extensive greenbelt
to be located along the west property line and along the south
property line. The issue here is whether or not the site should be
fitted with a protective wall, which is required along the south
property line and west property line because it abuts residential
property. The zoning ordinance has been altered recently to
provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission and/or the City
Council, and in this case the City Council, to make a determination
whether or not the wall could be eliminated and a greenbelt
substituted for that wall. That is the issue this evening, whether
or not the greenbelt should be substituted for a protective wall,
which would be at least five feet in height and no higher than
seven feet. The greenbelt is located within an area approximately
38 feet in width. It is an undulating greenbelt, that is it has
high and low points, the high points being at least four feet in
height. The landscape plan that was submitted at the time this
proposal was approved shows a number of shrubs and trees to be
`�" planted along that greenbelt. This is the second issue whether the
greenbelt can be substituted for the protective wall.
12950
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is there anything new in the file?
Mr. Nagy: We received a letter dated July 20, 1993 stating "We the
undersigned, prefer a berm in lieu of a wall behind our homes. Not
No. only is a berm functional, but it is aesthetically pleasing and
environmentally conscious due to the fact that trees and shrubs
will be planted. We feel that a natural barrier is a better choice
for privacy than an artificial impediment for the neighboring homes
and children playing on the playground." It is signed by John
Richards, 38988 Minton; John W. Zabik, 39092 Minton; Robert Irvine,
39040 Minton and Scott Sabin, 39014 Minton. All are abutting
property owners.
Mr. Engebretson: So that is four out of nine abutting property owners to the
south. Would the petitioner please come forward.
Oz Wagner, Architect with DeMattia & Associates, 45501 Helm St. , Plymouth, MI: I
have been here before. We went through the waiver of use petition.
This project was presented to this body with the proposal that we
would be constructing the berm. At that time there was a
requirement of that petition that we get approval of the property
owners within a 400 foot radius of this property. Part of that
presentation to those homeowners and part of the submitted petition
was a document that contained signatures of at least 55% of the
people favoring the berm during that waiver of use petition.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you referring to the 55% of the people favoring the day care
center?
�► Mr. Wagner: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: That has nothing to do with the berm.
Mr. Wagner: The reason I am bringing that up is we never discussed with them at
the time of that petition putting up a wall. The project was
always planned in terms of having a berm.
Mr. Engebretson: Don't say a wall was never discussed because a wall was discussed
in this room. Don't misrepresent what happened.
Mr. Wagner: Okay. I also have something to present this evening. I
went around to the property owners, there are 6 on Minton Street
and 8 on Patton. That is a total of 14. I was able to contact 12.
The two that I was not successful in contacting, I tried three
different times. I don't think they wanted to come to the door.
Of those 14, we have 12 signatures, of which 10 are in favor of the
berm. I have a document I can present to the Planning Department.
The way we presented that we didn't ask them to vote just for the
wall, we asked their opinion on berm or wall and you will see a
check mark on it.
Mr. Engebretson: How many of those that were in favor of the berm versus a wall
were on the west side of the property versus the south side?
12951
Mr. Wagner: There are 8 on the west side. We have 6 that favor the berm on the
west side. We have 6 on south side and I have 4 that favor the
berm. There is one other point I would like to add. There is some
history to the actual property, the fact that it is zoned C-1 and
OS, office services. Those types of uses by ordinance require the
wall. What we have here, at least in my opinion, we have a much
more residential use, something that is much more residential in
character. Hopefully you visited the site to see what is being
developed there. I did a little bit of looking on my own today
with the zoning ordinance and if this happened to be R-7, which is
a multiple use zoning, this project could also happen on a parcel
of land zoned R-7 as long as you went through the waiver use
petition, and if that were approved, it wouldn't require a wall.
Mr. Engebretson: When we went through this in our public hearing last fall, you
indicated that you were aware of the requirement of the wall and
that you planned to go to the Zoning Board to see if you could get
a waiver on that. Did you do that?
Mr. Wagner: I applied and then we got back here.
Mr. Engebretson: When did you apply?
Mr. Wagner: I don't have the actual documents in front of me. I would say
probably about a month or so ago.
Mr. Nagy? If I could comment on this. The applicant did, in fact, come to
the City of Livonia to fill out an application for waiver use
approval. As Mr. Shane pointed out in his presentation the
,ft. ordinance has been amended and at the time the statements were made
and we recorded the minutes there was still a requirement for a
wall. There was no option for a greenbelt in lieu of the wall even
though the plans showed that they always intended to seek relief to
have the greenbelt substituted for the wall, the ordinance did not
provide that determination to be made at the Commission or the
Council level. Shortly after the ordinance has been amended to
allow the Commission and Council level a discretion as to whether
or not the wall could be allowed. So when they came in to file for
a waiver use the file was reviewed by the Department of Law. The
Department of Law determined that since the ordinance has been, in
fact, amended, there is a different ordinance now than at the time
when they made their statements. The proper course of action is to
go back to the Planning Commission and City Council and seek an
amendment to the previously approved site plan to substitute a
greenbelt for the wall because that is now the ordinance as
amended. It is a new ordinance. It is not the ordinance that was
in effect at the time they were originally here.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand all that. It just surprises me that there was such
a long time-lapse. When I reviewed these records, I would have
been under the impression that you would have filed that appeal
long before that issue ever arose and so I don't want to be a
knitpicker but I was just curious as to why things developed the
way they did. Furthermore, the original drawings, if I remember
12952
correctly, did not have a wall on them even though it was required.
Those are some of the things that troubled me about the way this
whole matter has developed.
`ft• Mr. Morrow: The 15 feet that was deeded to the south property owners, that has
been accomplished and it looks like you are moving the chain-link
fence. Is that being done at your expense?
Mr. Wagner: Ford Motor did not purchase the 15 feet. The previous property
owner was taking care of the deeding of that.
Mr. Morrow: So that was taken care of. How about the fence?
Mr. Wagner: Right now our plans show a new 6 foot chain-link fence between the
child care center development and the residential property owners.
Mr. Morrow: I will say this, you spare no expense in this site. I was very
much impressed when I looked at it. The berm to the south looks
almost 6 feet high. It is almost like a wall.
Mr. Wagner: Berms have a tendency to grow. If you want us to reduce it to 4 we
can.
Mr. Morrow: No I am not trying to get you to reduce it. I am saying one of the
concerns is a wall and the berm seems to be almost becoming a wall
from the height. There is a fence all the way around the building
as it relates to controlling the traffic within the complex.
Mr. Wagner: There is a five foot fence around the play area. There is an
additional fence adjacent to the property lines.
Mr. Morrow: As far as the sign I don't see any problem with that. I certainly
don't want you to think about cutting down the size of the berm if
this should go through.
Mr. Engebretson: When did you move the chain-link fence?
Mr. Wagner: We haven't moved it yet. What you have seen is there are
green posts in there for the fence that contains the actual play
area.
Mr. Morrow: No there are posts back there. I was wondering what that was going
to be.
Mr. Engebretson: That fence was not moved as of Sunday. Mr. Morrow, you also made
another comment that the property was deeded over. I am not sure
that has happened.
Mr. Wagner: I can't answer that question.
Mr. Engebretson: In our public hearing on 9/29 the Fire Marshall expressed
concern about having access to the rear of that building. When I
was there on Sunday I would be hard pressed to see how any
paramedic vehicles are going to have access to the back of that
building. The testimony during that public hearing indicated they
12953
were working on an answer and you were looking at the number of
gates but nothing was indicated. It was indicated something would
be worked out. I would like to know what was worked out.
Now Mr. Wagner: The discussion I had when I talked with him, there are gates. (He
pointed this out on plan. ) What was agreed to was there is access
through the fencing for a paramedic not a vehicle.
Mr. Engebretson: Do we have anything from the Fire Marshal that indicates that has
been satisfied?
Mr. Nagy: I am sure they must because of the permit they were issued but we
have nothing in our file to that effect.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for
or against this proposal.
Michael Powell, 38962 Minton: I have asked to appear on behalf of my mother who is
the homeowner at 38962 Minton and read into the record what she has
addressed to the Planning Commission. "I reside at 38962 Minton
Avenue adjacent to the south property line of the new Ford
Motor/UAW Day Care Center. For more than four years I have been
involved in the discussions and negotiations between concerned
homeowners and the past and present owners of the former
Christenson property, part of which is now the site of the day care
center. With the urging of the Planning Commission we the
homeowners worked out an agreement with the former owner, Mr.
Scapatticci, which included plans for a protective wall along the
south property line directly behind my house. When the property
`, was sold I was assured by representatives of the new owner,
including attorney Tangora, that our request for a wall would be
honored. Therefore, I insist that the promises and agreements
mentioned above be honored and a protective wall built." If I
might also point out one or two issues. First of all with respect
to the posts for what will be the new fence, they are up along the
south property line. The fence has not been removed. It also
seems on the other side of the berm that now exists are some more
posts, which looks to me like there would be another fence there.
In essence, the berm would be contained within two fences. It
occurred to me, I am not sure how they plan on maintaining that
berm if it is fenced it.
Mr. Engebretson: They are putting a gate in there.
Mr. Powell: The other thing, given the fact they are required to come and get
approval from the Planning Commission and City Council, it was
somewhat presumptuous of them to go ahead and put the berm in. The
berm is there now. They have even planted shrubbery. I think for
the architect to come forward today and state they were unaware or
weren't certain about whether a wall was requested, is somewhat
disingenuous. He was obviously privy to those conversations.
Helen Coster, 39066 Minton: I am directly in back of the nursery. I agree with
them. It should be held what was promised to us four years ago.
12954
Now they say they have sold this property but this plan with this
four foot berm I can see the whole playground and we are talking of
children. That noise will bounce off their building and come into
our yards and our homes. To me the wall would kind of bounce the
�► noise back and maybe contain it a little more in the area rather
than into our homes and we could have a little more quiet. That is
the only thing I can think of right now other than it should be
held up to give us our wall that we asked for and was promised.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you the recipient of the deed for the 15 feet in back of your
house as you were promised?
Mrs. Costner: No nothing.
Mr. Engebretson: Have any of your neighbors to the best of your knowledge?
Mrs. Costner: Nobody has received anything. They have just been passing the buck
back and forth.
Mary Ramsey, 9412 Patton: I agree with the berm. I like the idea of the berm. I
think it is more attractive but I feel it is not high enough.
Their grade level is much higher than mine and even though it is
four feet looking from my yard, from their yard it is much less. I
feel it should be higher. The grade was brought up quite a bit.
The other problem I find, we agreed to this day care center and
thought it was a good idea when this started because the hours were
6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. These are the papers we were given when we
agreed to this. (She passed them on to the Commissioners) Now they
have sent a notice around to the plants that it will be open two
`om. shifts until one in the morning. It is not too bad during the day
but it is light until nine or ten in the summertime and having a
full amount of children out there playing until nine or ten at
night is a poor idea. We were under the idea it would be only
until 7:00 p.m. and now they have changed that without any notice
to anyone to my knowledge. Now they have sent it around to the
plants advertising this and said it will be until one in the
morning. I strenuously object to that. My backyard abuts up to the
building and it is a very small area between my fence and where the
small children are going to be and I wouldn't mind during the day
but not at night.
Mr. Engebretson: That is new information to us.
Mr. McCann: Did you talk to anybody about those hours of operation?
Mrs. Ramsey: No but I know a lady that lives across the street from me does
secretarial work and she put in an application and they asked her
if she wanted day shift or afternoons. A gentlemen two doors from
me works for Fords and he got a flyer advertising this for two
shifts.
Mr. McCann: I just wondered with young children what they would do after 7:00 p.m.
12955
Robert Irvine, 39040 Minton: I am very much in favor of the berm. I can also see
the point of the people that want the wall because the berm behind
me is quite high. I am blocked from the project but my next door
neighbor, Mrs. Coster, at her point it goes down and she has a
valid complaint that it is too low there. I would not like to see
any kind of wall put up. These men have done a fantastic job of
landscaping in there. They are still in the process of putting
grass on the berm plus they are putting pine trees 4 to 6 foot high
all around that berm. Trees and ground absorb noise a lot more
than concrete. A lot more. You have beautification there.
Instead of me looking at a concrete wall every time I walk out in
my backyard, I will be looking at greenery like I have been looking
at with the nursery for the last 25 years. I think if they put it
up two to three foot higher it might do better than it is right
now.
Ruth Fleszar, 38884 Minton: My home is south but I don't back right up into the
new child care center but at the time when the other owner had
purchased it from the nursery he promised us all a wall and most
of them were in favor of it that time. My thought is, and I did
not receive a letter I guess because I am two houses away, if they
allow this berm, and I shouldn't say allow because it is already
there so I don't see the reason for this meeting, then would they
stop it and if the rest of us want a wall, would they have a berm
on half and a wall on the other half? I am just thinking that what
they do now they will continue to the end and we will all have to
accept the berm.
Mr. Engebretson: The property to the east, I am afraid we can't address that here
but I think your conclusion is logical.
Mrs. Fleszar: There are a lot of older people there and I figure with a berm they
could climb there and look into our back doorwalls.
Mr. Engebretson: So we will put you down for a wall.
John Zabik, 39092 Minton: I am in favor of the berm. Mrs. Costner brought up when
Scapatticci had his project going here, the way he had it we would
have four buildings on the south side, less the 25 foot roadway for
the Fire Department to come through there just in case. At that
point we figured when we had a meeting with him that we would have
him put up that wall. Seeing his project didn't go through, we
have this child care center here and we looked for four years out
at nothing but weeds and they came along with this project and this
berm and it is a really beautiful project. I am in favor of that
berm because I think it is going to absorb most of the noise these
kids will be making. There was something said about the wall would
be better for protection and safety from someone wanting to break
into these houses. It would be foolish for someone that wanted to
break into these houses to travel 300 feet and jump a fence and
travel another 300 feet to jump another fence and then break into
your house and take something out and travel all the way back. If
they want to break in, they will be driving up your driveway. The
way they are setting this thing up now I think those trees and that
berm will absorb more noise than any wall will. So I am in favor
of that berm.
12956
John Osborn, 9486 Patton: My concerns are also as with Mrs. Ramsey's with this
place being open until one o'clock in the morning. There is a
basketball court in the back of the place for children up to 12
years of age. A poll was taken by Mr. Wagner on Saturday. There
`.► was no mention of this 1:00 a.m. and he said he wasn't aware of it
but it seems a few of us are. I think some of the signatures
favoring a berm without the knowledge of a 1:00 a.m. closing, that
knowledge could have changed them. I understand DeMattia is in the
middle. I would like to bring that up as well as the berm as it
exists behind my home is maybe 4 foot. It does undulate less than
4 foot. As I read the ordinance it states location and height of
the greenbelt shall be substantially the same as would be required
for a protective wall, the minimum 5 foot, the maximum 7 foot.
That is not the case. I have a 6 foot easment behind my garage for
utility access. I am certain there is an easement on the other
side of the fence. With a berm there that means all utility
traffic comes through the residents' backyard. You are not going
to put a utility truck on an angle like that. I currently have a
hedge back there. In the wintertime it sticks because it is
deciduous. I get to look at this parking lot. I get to listen to
the snowplows. I get to listen to all this traffic. It opens at
6:00 a.m. I assume workers will be there at 5:30 a.m. going on
until 1:00 a.m. to 1:15 a.m. I am a househusband. My wife works
out of the home. I work at home. I favor a wall.
Mr. Powell: It occurs to me that part of the solution, and I am not sure this
is part of the operations plan or not, but in terms of noise
abatement, everyone wants to have children be able to enjoy
themselves and play out but in terms of noise abatement if there
was a limit as to the amount of children. I am not sure how many
children will be attending this facility but I believe it would be
only reasonable that there be a limit placed on the number, aside
from some sort of emergency, out on the playground. Maximum 170
children, it doesn't address how many would be out at any given
time. It would seem to me, if it is within the purvue of the
Planning Commission to address that. Also I think it is somewhat
outrageous for them to suggest and it appears they are sneaking
behind everyone's back to try and have the facility open until the
early a.m. I am sure that comes as a shock to most residents. I
am assuming, pursuant to the zoning use waiver, that would be
something that they would have to come before the Commission and
apply for rather than just go ahead and assert the right to do so.
I could be mistaken about that.
Mr. Engebretson: Our comment is the issue of the hours of operation wasn't
specifically addressed in the previous resolution. I recall the
daytime hours as being mentioned also. I don't think we can deal
with that in this particular forum but perhaps there are other ways
to address that.
George McCarthy, 20495 Westview Drive, Northville: I am the Project Manager for
the facility. I work for Ford Motor Land Development. A couple of
issues - the hours of operation, I believe that did change. They
conducted some focus groups with the UAW employees and found there
was an interest for later hours than what was originally
12957
anticipated the facility would be open. I believe now they have
gone to the Department of Social Services and have approval for the
5:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. operation. How many children will be there
at 1:00 a.m.? How many children will be there at 5:00 p.m.? I
'tow don't know. I can't really address the ocupational aspect. I am
here for the construction end. It did come about the extended
hours is what the UAW employees felt they would need to have an
adequate facility. I would like to address one other issue on the
presumption of going ahead on the berm. I guess I will take blame.
I did receive a letter from the City Clerk saying our variance had
been approved, our site plan had been approved as submitted, the
elevations had been approved as submitted and our landscape plan
had been approved as submitted and in that approval letter, back in
December, the Clerk did ask us to come forward with our sign
program. We recently developed a sign program and have come
forward so I think we have lived up to the communique I got from
the City Clerk, which indicated our plan was approved as submitted
and that is, I believe, the resolution that was passed by Council.
If we were presumptuous in going ahead with the berm I apologize to
both the homeowners and to this Commission. It was an oversight on
our part that we did not come back and ask for a variance on the
berm because we thought it had been granted previously. The
clarification now with changing codes, I guess, brings us back to
this board.
Mr. Engebretson: You said you went to the UAW membership to determine their
desires. What contact, if any, did you have with the community or
City to see what kind of impact it had on them?
Mr. McCarthy: I don't believe there was any.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, is that correct, that in the new ordinance the berm has
to equal the five foot protective wall?
Mr. Nagy: It should provide substantial screening. It is a combination of
plant material and berm.
Mr. McCann: Would you say this site has accommodated that?
Mr. Nagy: Absolutely. I viewed it in the field. I think there is
substantial compliance.
Mr. McCann: Do you have any familiarity with the type of operation they would
have in the evening hours?
Mr. McCarthy: The building itself is divided into three care center units,
infants which will be in cribs, toddlers and a preschool area.
They don't expect older children. It is truly a preschool
facility.
Mr. McCann: Therefore you don't expect children to be outdoors in the evening?
Mr. McCarthy: I really can't address that. I would think not but I don't want to
say that.
`�- Mr. Engebretson: I think the record will show that previously it was indicated
that the ages go up to 12.
12958
Mr. Morrow: I want to follow up on the basketball court. Do you have lighting
out there?
Mr. McCarthy: No there is no lighting at all on the back of the building.
Mr. Morrow: Just a follow up to an earlier comment. What is the zoning
classification for our day care centers?
Mr. Nagy: RUF zoning district with waiver use approval.
Mr. Morrow: I guess where I am coming from could they petition this to be
placed in the use it actually is in and meet the ordinance.
Mr. Nagy: It is a waiver use within the office service classification, which
is the section of the ordinance under which they applied for for
their approval. It is also a waiver use within the R-7, multiple
family classification.
Mr. Morrow: Do those call for a wall?
Mr. Nagy: R-7 does not provide for a wall nor does RUF? It provides for a
greenbelt.
Mr. Morrow: They could take another road for a different zoning classification.
Mr. Nagy: They could always file for a change of zoning.
Mr. Morrow: Then they would meet the requirements. I guess what I am saying,
we don't want to lose sight of the fact of what the actual use was.
4`.
Mr. LaPine: I just want to get something straight in my mind. It was your
contention when you got this letter from the City Clerk's office
that you could go ahead and put up the berm in lieu of the wall
because your site plan had been approved. Is that correct?
Mr. McCarthy: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: My next question would be if that is true and you got that letter
in December, why just a month ago, this gentleman here said that he
had just appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Why did you do
that if you had already felt you had our approval?
Mr. McCarthy: That came as a complete surprise to us. We had notification
verbally, and I don't know if it came out of Building or Planning
or what body of the City, but they got word to DeMattia that we
would have to come back and appeal. That is when it came as a
complete surprise and that came in a telephone conversation. At
that time we started through the appeal process.
Mr. LaPine: The question about this 15 feet that was supposed to be deeded to
the propety owners to the rear. Did Ford Motor Land Company or
UAW, whoever owns this property now, have they done that?
Mr. McCarthy: We have closed on the parcel that is represented by our site plan.
Fifteen feet is off our site plan.
12959
Mr. LaPine: You did not buy that parcel of land? I just read in the minutes
Mr. Tangora remarked the transaction can't be concluded until such
time as Mr. Scapatticci sells the property so he can pay off the
land contract because he can't deed the property to these
homeowners until such time as he has title. I have to assume at
this time he has gotten the money from Ford Motor Company. I
assume he has paid off the property and I am wondering why he
hasn't deeded that over to the homeowners. Maybe Mr. Tangora
should come here and answer that question for us.
Mr. McCann: At least right now Mr. Scapatticci is still paying property taxes
on that 15 feet but the people do have a right to it, I agree. At
this point I listened to this and I think it is a good idea
considering the type of use and the majority of the neighbors are
in favor of it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#7-154-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that authorization to substitute greenbelt for protective
wall in connection with Petition 92-9-2-28 and Sign Permit Application
to erect a ground sign by Ford Motor Land Company, on behalf of the
UAW-Ford Child Development Center located at 38945 Ann Arbor Road in
Section 31, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site/Grading Plan, defined as Sheet No. C-1 dated 10/15/92
by DeMattia & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
`. 2) That an adequate irrigation system that would permanently maintain
all plants in a healthy condition shall be installed prior to final
inspection;
3) That the Sign Plan by The Supersine Company dated 6/24/93, as
revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That this approval by the Planning Commission is subject to the
approval of the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson: I am sure that this is likely to pass. I am going to be on the
minority side. It is a protest vote. I am appalled by the way this
matter has evolved from day one to this point and I think the Ford
Motor Company, although maybe not technically responsible for some
of the issues that have been of concern, they certainly, in my
mind, had a moral obligation to see to it that the promises made to
these residents would be fulfilled and even though Ford technically
doesn't own that land as far as the 15 feet is concerned, it was
discussed when this proposal was made and every indication was made
that the deal was a deal. I think Ford is in a position to utilize
some of their leverage to make sure that happens. I think the
testimony is clear that while tonight we have a mixture of desires
relative to the wall or berm and I understand there are good points
to both, initially the desire on the south side, according to the
minutes, was for a wall. I think where the berm may do a better
12960
job, if those people on the south end were given extra
consideration relative to the height of that berm, the plantings on
that berm and some help getting what they were promised, I would
feel better about this, but this whole proposal from the beginning
rr• has had some convoluted points of discussion that leave me greatly
disappointed. It is a wonderful looking facility. I think it is
going to be an asset to the community. I am not sure how much of
an asset it will be to some of the people that might find some of
their rights infringed upon but notwithstanding that I think Ford
Motor Company could go a long way towards mitigating what I think
are some concerns, especially by the people on the south. I am
very disappointed that they are ducking the issue by simply putting
it on the shoulders of the other party and frankly, some of the
issues have been misrepresented and that bothers me. A deal is a
deal and I think to indicate that this type of facility is going to
operate from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and then because of some focus
group discussions, suddenly extend the hours to a second shift,
that is not what was discussed previously. There are a whole lot
of contradictions here. I am very disappointed in the Ford Motor
Company for taking that position. I know I am in the minority but
my vote is a protest vote. I would hope to get someone's attention
to try to live up to what I feel are some very important
responsibilities.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, I am going to disagree with you. I have looked at
this thing. I think it should be stated that Ford has come in here
in a situation where we were looking at split C-1, we were looking
at office, we were looking at a number of things and then there was
going to be 15 foot for that type of use. I thought that was
'oar reasonable. The owner and Ford Motor Company worked it out to get
the 15 foot for the type of use we put in subdivisions and we put
in other uses where there is no 15 foot. The only thing we have
really showed here tonight, if they have done anything wrong, is
they have talked about extending the hours for other children.
That is something this was built for by Ford Motor Company with the
UAW for the families of Livonia. I think it is a good gesture by
Ford Motor Company. If the use has increased somewhat, I don't
think it was anticipated at the time they were before us. I think
they have been honest in their dealings. I think what they have
here is a tremendous project. I would like to see more of these
projects in Livonia. I, on the other hand, would like to
congratulate them and I think the majority of the neighbors have
shown their support for the berm and the whole type of business
that is being put in there. I congratulate them and hope we would
pass this.
Mr. Engebretson: I am not sure the majority of the residents on the south end
really do support it. That is our difference of opinion.
Mr. LaPine: I don't think this facility was built just for the children of
Livonia. If I remember right there are 13 different locations of
Ford Motor Company plants that children are going to be coming from
so it wasn't built for the children of Livonia. That is one of the
12961
objections I originally had. I have a problem. I think the
facility is beautiful. The play equipment is probably the best
play equipment money can buy but I have some problems about the 15
feet that hasn't been given to the homeowners. You can say that
�.► isn't Ford Motor Company's problem. In some respects it is. They
knew from the word go that this was part of the agreement. Until
such time as the people get this property, they were let down.
I am a little upset about the time changes. We were told
originally it will be from 6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Now they are
saying it is one o'clock in the morning, which probably is not a
problem because the kids aren't going to be outside playing but I
just have a feeling I have not been given all the straight
information here.
Mr. Alanskas: I think in regards to that 15 feet it has nothing to do with
tonight because we are voting on a sign and a berm in place of a
wall. I think also when this berm and trees start growing it will
far exceed a wall and be a very good buffer.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: LaPine, 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 93-7-8-13
'fir. by Polaris Communications requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
erect a satellite dish antenna on the roof of the Target Store located
at 20100 Haggerty Road in Section 6.
Mr. Shane: This is a partial plan of the Target Store. It is located between
I-275 and Haggerty Road. The location of this satellite dish would
be 130 feet west of the east line of the building, 185 feet south
of the north line of the building. It is almost at the center of
the building. They have also provided some site line drawings to
indicate in their opinion the dish will not be viewed from Haggerty
Road or I-275 because of the grade of the two roads and the height
of the building. It is a 6 foot diameter dish, white in color on a
4 foot pole and the ultimate height at its highest point is 7 feet.
Mr. Engebretson: Does that site line indicate it will not be visible from those
two roads you mentioned, Haggerty and I-275?
Mr. Shane: It does.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here and do you have anything to add?
Matt Gailbrith, 8213 Rhonda, Canton: I talked with our surveyor and he informed me
that the roof line from the roof to the front of the wall is about
8 foot so no matter how far away you will be, you will not see the
dish.
12962
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-155-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-7-8-13 by Polaris Communications
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to erect a satellite dish
antenna on the roof of the Target Store located at 20100 Haggerty Road
in Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Package, received by the Livonia Planning Commission
on 7/2/93 by Polaris Communications, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That this approval by the Planning Commission is subject to the
approval of the City Council;
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite dish antenna location is such that it
will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring
properties.
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 93-7-8-14
by Knights of Columbus requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance X1543 in connection with a proposal to
erect a satellite dish antenna on the roof of the assembly hall located
at 19801 Farmington Road in Section 4.
Mr. Shane: The K of C Hall is located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads. They are planning on
putting a satellite dish on a portion of the roof of the building.
If you would look at the building, the east half is lower than the
west half. They are going to place the dish on the roof of the
lower half. Therefore if you look at it from Farmington Road you
will see the backdrop of the dish will be the wall of the upper
portion. For that reason they are planning on having a gray
colored mesh dish, which would be similar to the gray on the side
of the building. The dish is 10 foot in diameter on a 6 foot pole
and will have 11 foot height at its highest point.
Bob Kostoff: My business office is 400 Starkweather, Plymouth. I represent the
Knights of Columbus Hall.
Mr. LaPine: What is the satellite dish for?
Mr. Kostoff: They are bringing entertainment into their home.
Mr. LaPine: When you say entertainment, what entertainment are you referring
to?
Mr. Kostoff: Primarily sports, news, broadcasts from all over the world. They
have the discretion to bring in communications to their clientele
there.
12963
Mr. Alanskas: In looking it will be not visible hardly at all. It is a good
area.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#7-156-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-7-8-14 by Knights of Columbus requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal to erect a satellite dish antenna on the
roof of the assembly hall located at 19801 Farmington Road in Section 4
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Package, received by the Livonia Planning Commission
on 7/13/93 by Advanced Satellite, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That this approval by the Planning Commission is subject to the
approval of the City Council;
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite dish antenna location is such that it
will have no detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring
properties.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
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 last item on the agenda is Petition 93-7-8-15
by Schostak Brothers & Company, on behalf of Wonderland Shopping Center
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to alter an exterior
building elevation and Sign Permit Application for one wall sign for the
shopping center located on the south side of Plymouth in Section 35.
Mr. Shane: This is a plan of Wonderland Shopping Center. This particular
building is located at the very southeast corner of the shopping
center just opposite Montgomery Wards. It will be a 199 square
foot sign. (He presented a rendering of the sign) There will be
some minor modifications to the elevation itself. All materials
which occur on Wonderland Center now will be carried forth on this
particular elevation as well so it will carry the same
architectural look. He has provided some samples. (He presented
these to the Commission)
Michael Polsinelli, 26913 Northwestern Highway: Mr. Shane has explained fairly
well our proposal. We have been successful in executing a lease
with American Eagle Outfitters to put a 23,000 square foot outlet
12964
center in Wonderland in the entire Building B which encompasses
three of the existing spaces and consolidate it into one. I think
the balance of what Mr. Shane has explained to you summarizes our
intentions.
``►
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
{17-157-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 93-7-8-15 by Schostak Brothers & Company, on
behalf of Wonderland Shopping Center requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 28.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to alter an exterior building elevation and Sign Permit
Application for one wall sign for the shopping center located on the
south side of Plymouth in Section 35, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Elevation Plan, dated 6/30/93 by Schostak Brothers &
Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Sign Package, received by the Livonia Planning Commission
on 7/14/93 by Schostak Brothers & Company, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3) That this approval by the Planning Commission is subject to the
applicant being granted a variance for excessive signage by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 668th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on July 27, 1993 was adjourned at 11:11 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ames C. McCann, Secretary
•
ATTEST: 1k
Jac Engebrea son, Chairman
VI
jg