HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-10-26 13089
MINUTES OF THE 673rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 26, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 673rd 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 65 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow Robert Alanskas
Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent
Members absent: Jim McCann
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
93-10-2-24 by John S. Barker, Hobbs & Black Assoc. Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct an addition to the existing Woodhaven
of Livonia facility located on the south side of Wentworth, west of
Middlebelt Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us what you are
proposing.
John Barker of Hobbs & Black Architects, 31502 Merriwood Park, Livonia: The
project that we are presenting is a small expansion to the
Woodhaven project that exists. What we are proposing for the
project is an expansion of a day room at the end of one wing of
housing and a new smaller unit consisting of six patient rooms,
`.
13090
which will have a small connector to the existing building, and a
courtyard developed between the two for some outdoor recreation
space for the residents. It has been to the benefit of Woodhaven
that business has done well enough to cause a need for expansion.
r�.► What we are really proposing to do here is to build a new small
wing in what I term the 90's standards for such facilities. We are
trying to do an expansion that has little bit larger rooms, more
privacy and some embellishments that over the ten years since
Woodhaven opened, and Woodhaven is a real fine example in our
opinion of how one of these places conducts itself, but to do a
little bit more embellishment, a little bit more residential in
character kind of a project. Where previous developments have had
straight housing wings, we are doing something with a little in and
out character with some bay windows and pitched roof elements, etc.
Also, as I said before we are developing an outdoor courtyard space
for residents. Along with that growth is the need for more
activity space in the facility. We are proposing the development
of a new day room that has some dining space that has some leisure
area with sofas, etc. , kind of a mini prep center for food brought
into the area. It is really a big activity space for both the
entertainment and the education programs that go on for the
residents. (He presented the interior plans) We are emphasizing
the feeling of residential character along with having high ceiling
spaces, etc. The project doesn't face the Wentworth side but
rather the Parkland side. Primarily, because of the nature of the
building, we are really trying to develop on this site because of
the landscaped grounds that we don't want to disturb. As I said
before we are trying to emphasize a little bit more of a
residential character in the architecture of the building and while
"law it is still contextual, the brick and trim will exactly match that
on the existing building and maybe soften it a little bit.
Mr. Morrow: If I am following you correctly, what we are doing is just
expanding the residence as opposed to bringing on any new special
type care?
Mr. Barker: Correct. This is strictly an expansion for the customers that are
coming today.
Mr. Morrow: I was wondering if you were going to bring in a special type of
care for that facility?
Mr. Barker: No, it is still the same level assisted living center.
Mrs. Fandrei: Is this going to blend in with the present building?
Mr. Barker: Exactly. When I said there is a pitched roof element going on
here, the existing Woodhaven is a mixture of pitched and flat
roofs. What we are doing is putting a pitched roof on the
expansion area but at the same time the window types, the trim
types and brick will be an exact match.
Mr. Tent: Will this be the final expansion project or do you contemplate
enlarging it at a future date?
13091
Mr. Barker: That is a tough thing to call. If the market dictates, we might
consider it again down the road. At this point in time there is
not another plan to add onto the building. I guess it was in the
early 80's when the project was originally planned and there were
shown two zones and, in fact, we left them on the site plan, two
zones for future 16 bed expansion. Whether or not that will ever
come to pass I have no idea.
Mr. Tent: But you do have room?
Mr. Barker: There is additional room on the site if that ever comes to pass. I
guess we will know in the next couple of years.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have any final words sir?
Mr. Barker: We think we are working for a fine organization. We have had a
pleasure doing it and we hope for your blessings this evening.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-10-2-24 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-197-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
26, 1993 on Petition 93-10-2-24 by John S. Barker, Hobbs & Black Assoc.
Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the
existing Woodhaven of Livonia facility located on the south side of
Wentworth, west of Middlebelt Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
'tow that Petition 93-10-2-24 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked sheet S-1 dated 10-1-93 prepared by Hobbs
& Black Associates. Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved,
shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 10-1-93 and the
architectural design as illustrated on a perspective drawing dated
10-1-93 prepared by Hobbs & Black Associates, Inc. , Architects,
which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to.
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 9.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
13092
Mr. Tent: I would like to make a comment. My mother is 88 years young and
she spent a year in this facility. This is one of the finest
facilities that we have ever been exposed to. It is clean, the
food is great, loving care, good staff. I can't say enough about
it. I would like to acknowledge three people in there that have
done a great job: Randy Gasser, the Director, Gloria Gerulis and
Dee Grondcieleski. It is a great facility. They have done a nice
job. I am sure the addition will be something you can be proud of
and we will be proud of it too so good luck.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
93-8-3-3 by Claude Guill requesting to vacate a 10' easement on the
north side of Lot 30, Joy Road Cozy Homesites Subdivision, located north
of Joy Road between Deering and Gillman in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
36.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
the above description retains the westerly six foot of the ten foot
easement in question due to Detroit Edison overhead facilities
extending in a north-south direction along the westerly limits of
the Deering Avenue lots. There are no City maintained utilities
within the ten foot wide easement, Further, there appears to be no
off-site surface drainage dependent on the easement area as an
outlet. Therefore, we have no objections to the vacating proposal.
We have also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they do
not have facilities in the proposed vacation of the alley therefore
they have no objection to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you clarify what Mr. Clark referred to in his letter
regarding the retention of six feet?
Mr. Nagy: It is illustrated on the drawing that in addition to the ten foot
easement along the north side of subject lot, there is also an
easement at the rear at the west of the lot and where the easements
come together there is an overlap. There are utilities in that
north-south easement area so to that extent they are retaining the
west six feet as there are Edison lines in that area.
Mr. Engebretson: With regard to the objective the petitioner has, it doesn't make
any difference?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: I presume the gentleman at the podium is the petitioner?
Claude Guill: Yes sir. I am the owner of Lot 30. As far as that six foot goes,
that isn't needed. I just need that ten foot vacated to build a
garage.
13093
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-8-3-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-198-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
26, 1993 on Petition 93-8-3-3 by Claude Guill requesting to vacate a 10'
easement on the north side of Lot 30, Joy Road Cozy Homesites
Subdivision, located north of Joy Road between Deering and Gillman in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-8-3-3 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect any public
utilities in the area.
2) That the subject easement area can be more advantageously utilized
by the owner of the property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code
of Ordinances.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary
Plat approval for Camborne Pines Subdivision proposed to be located
south of Six Mile Road between Harrison Avenue and Savoie in the
`m' Northwest 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal but they state we may wish
to review with the developer the 100' width requirement at the
setback line for Lot 7. Their preliminary calculations indicate
that this width is approximately 87' to 89' at the setback line.
We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the
street name should be consistent with other street names in the
area to facilitate delivery and emergency services. They do state
their department has no objection to the plat plan as submitted.
Also in our file is a letter from the Superintendent of Parks and
Recreation stating he sees no discrepancies or problems with the
proposed development. He does state that the flood plain of the
Tarabusi drain encroaches on parts of Lots 9 and 10, rendering
those portions of the lots unable to be developed. Lastly, we have
a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objection to the development of this subdivision. Referencing Mr.
Clark's letter referencing Lot 7, you have revised plans that
overcome that deficiency and the lot is now over 100 feet as
required.
ti..
13094
Mr. Engebretson: How was that accomplished?
Mr. Nagy: Mr. Roskelly is here to respond to that.
Noi__ Mr. Engebretson: Before we go to Mr. Roskelly, the Public Safety letter from the
Police Department referencing the street name being made consistent
with other street names in the area. What other street names are
involved here?
Mr. Nagy: We have looked at that and due to the fact that it is not a
continuation of any other existing street in the area and due to
surrounding development, the name that is selected is not in
conflict with any established street in the area.
Mr. Engebretson: I wasn't aware there was any kind of a guide here.
Mr. Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia: I don't believe you people are not
familiar with this parcel. In 1991 I appeared before you and
received approval for a seven lot subdivision at that time. At
that time one of the contiguous lot owners was concerned that I was
landlocking a parcel of land. I then took a better look and after
two years I was able to buy land and houses from four other people
to accomplish what I believe is a much nicer configuration with
very safe cul-de-sac lots and as Mr. Nagy pointed out a 100 foot
building line all in excess of one-half acre. If you notice the
cul-de-sac at the end is actually expanded with a 60 foot tangent
in between in order to give a larger island for planting as well as
to obstruct any lights by virtue of these plantings in that area
and it gives it a smoother frontage and I think a much prettier
situation with a park affect with that island. One of the
questions was whether or not, and I agree, if you notice the
contour line at the extreme bottom corner, this represents the one
hundred year high water flood plain line so what appeared in the
directive that this perhaps was interfering with the construction
of this, it is really just a touch of 30 feet one leg and maybe 10
feet on the other leg where we dip into the flood plain. We are
cognizant and aware of the fact that that cannot be built on but
that is not a problem.
Mr. Engebretson: How did you fix the problem with Lot 7?
Mr. Roskelly: With our wonderful computers today we strictly, if you have the old
plan and you have the new plan, if you notice the common line
between 7 and 8, we went in an almost southerly direction so the
frontage of Lot 7 was deficient and we pulled down 2240 on the
front line and then we backed up to the rear of Lot 7 to 201 rather
than 221 so we were just swapping area in order to accomplish the
100 foot at the 100 foot building line.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Roskelly, I am pleased you are coming in with 1/2 acre lots.
This ties in with our open space planning concept. It pleases me a
lot. I realize this is a preliminary plot plan. Can you share
with me the value of the homes?
13095
Mr. Roskelly: First of all, in the pre-preliminary plat I guess I sort of
overkill by virtue of giving you all the various dimensions, etc.
I guess that is why it was detected that the one lot was under the
100 feet. Mathematically this is correct. These homes will run in
the area of a low of $175,000 between that and $225,000.
r
Mr. Tent: That will be a mixture of ranches and colonials?
Mr. Roskelly: I haven't decided yet. I have a foolish notion that because of the
English Cape Cod that sits on Six Mile Road, that I originally
owned and later sold, I sort of would like to keep the theme of
Cape Cods and Colonials. On the other hand it is very difficult to
say I refuse to build a ranch home but I certainly would like the
trend of Cape Cods and Colonials.
Mr. Tent: You will have underground utilities?
Mr. Roskelly: All underground utilities, phone, electric etc.
Mr. Tent: I know you do a good job and I wish you the best of luck and of
course we will see the final plat when it comes in here.
Mr. Roskelly: This will be almost a replica of the one I have on Hubbard Road
between Five and Six or the one I have on Seven Mile Road west of
Gill Road.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Roskelly, does that selling price include the lot?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes sir.
Nor Mr. Morrow: Will you be doing the building yourself?
Mr. Roskelly: Generally speaking our intentions at this time are to build the
homes. I would suggest with that price lots with the type of homes
we want, I would suggest perhaps we would build half of them and
others will build the other half but those builders will be
scrutinized by restrictions and by my critique.
Mr. Morrow: I was hoping you would say that.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Roskelly, our notes indicate you are not putting up the
required entrance marker for the subdivision. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: We are asking for a call back on that.
Mrs. Fandrei: Do you have any idea where it might go?
Mr. Roskelly: In view of the fact we have such a restricted area, we will do what
we did on Seven Mile and Newburgh in Caliburn Estates. We will get
an easement off the corner of Lot 16 and have the proper setback,
etc. We will retain an easement on that lot for that signage. It
is a better place because on the boundary of the lot with the lower
right-of-way to the east, there is quite a healthy band of large
trees. We will enhance it with certain shrubs, etc. which will
come on before the final plat for your examination.
13096
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Roskelly, Lot 16, what is the setback of the house going to be
from Six Mile Road?
Mr. Roskelly: We are permitted to put it at 50 feet back but I suggest it will be
further back for several reasons. The house to the west is further
`11111. back. Because of the noise from Six Mile we will put it back as
far as we can which means we must have a rear yard that will front
on Six Mile Road. The rear yard must be 50 feet so we will put it
as far back as we can.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, you have a 60 foot road coming in from Six Mile.
Does that 60 foot road go around the cul-de-sac or does it narrow
down?
Mr. Roskelly: It is a complete 60 foot right-of-way in its entirety.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Roskelly, now that we know that you have control over the
name of the street in the subdivision, have you had a chance to
think about what you might want to name that street?
Mr. Roskelly: After our discussion I have some mixed emotions. I certainly do
not have a son or grandson named Pines so I can't relate that I am
frozen with the name Pines. On the other hand, I understand there
is a family by the name Fulton who desperately desire to have their
name on a street. I am a little concerned that if that party was a
pioneer west of Middlebelt, between Middlebelt and Merriman, which
I assume is their homestead, is there the same intrinsic value in
getting that name on a street between Inkster and Middlebelt?
Mr. Engebretson: I can't possibly tell you how they feel about that but the
`41111. question is, have you considered the possibility and if so, have
you come to any kind of a sense as to where you would want to go
with that?
Mr. Roskelly: I have certainly considered the possible use of Fulton Pine Court.
Again, I think I would have to get some commitment from that
person, not monetary, just the fact that there was some sincere
desire that their name live on in the City of Livonia and certainly
my subdivision would not degrade any family name. I would have to
get some assurance that these parties are interested in it and it
is not some fancy whim.
Mr. Engebretson: We will supply that to you Mr. Roskelly. The public record is
full of very sincere documentation regarding the proposal to honor
those long-time pioneers of the City. I will be happy to supply
that information.
Mr. Roskelly: Certainly if I am convinced, I have no problem.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for
Camborne Pines Subdivision closed.
13097
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
1610-199-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
26, 1993 on Preliminary Plat approval for Camborne Pines Subdivision
proposed to be located south of Six Mile Road between Harrison Avenue
and Savoie in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the
Preliminary Plat for Camborne Pines Subdivision be approved subject to
the submittal of a plan for a subdivision entrance marker to the
Planning Commission for its approval prior to submittal of the Final
Plat for the following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat complies with all of the standards and
requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance #543 and the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
2) That no objections to the approval of the Preliminary Plat have
been received from any City Department or Public Utility company.
3 That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the subject land.
FURTHER RRSOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have
been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
\rr resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
93-6-8-11 by Stuart J. Fine & Associates, on behalf of Burton Hollow
Shopping Center, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a building addition to the shopping center located at 17176
Farmington Road in Section 10.
Mr. Miller: This is the Burton Hollow Shopping Center located at Farmington and
Six Mile Road. They are proposing to add a 2900 square foot retail
and storage addition to the back of the existing pharmacy that is
located in the mall. The addition will be located at the rear of
the shopping center and abut against the existing Danny's
Supermarket. The floor plan shows that this addition will be used
in part as retail and mostly storage. The petitioner has gone
before the ZBA and was granted a variance for 50 deficient parking
spaces. The proposed masonry block that will be used to construct
this will be painted to match the existing shopping center.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, have we received any correspondence on this?
13098
Mr. Nagy: The Fire Marshal in his letter referencing the site plan indicates
they have no objection to this proposal. Ordinance Enforcement
indicates they conducted a zoning review of the referenced petition
and the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient
on site parking. See Zoning Board of Appeals 1/9305-72, a copy of
which is attached.
Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner is not with us this evening because we held him
captive until the wee hours of our study meeting last week because
of other items that took precedence and because this proposal has
been given by the Zoning Board of Appeals as being a complying
addition, there really aren't any issues to hash up here tonight so
we excused the petitioner from coming in. Unless there is anyone
in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal, a
motion would be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
it was
##10-200-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
93-6-8-11 by Stuart J. Fine & Associates, on behalf of Burton Hollow
Shopping Center, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a building addition to the shopping center located at 17176
Farmington Road in Section 10 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 5/10/93, as revised,
by Stuart J. Fine & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That the Floor Plan, received by the Livonia Planning Commission on
10/12/93, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
as well as subject to the following additional condition (which was
required by the Zoning Board of Appeals):
1) The portion of the parking lot which is owned by the Petitioner is
to be re-sealed and re-striped, according to code, no later than
April 15, 1994. Further, the parking area located in front of the
courtyard and Baskin Robbins should be given extra attention to
lessen the "dip" that currently exists.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
93-10-8-20 by Robert C. Doyle Associates requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct building additions and alter exterior
elevations on the building located at 28003 Five Mile Road in Section
24.
Mr. Miller: This is located on the corner of Five Mile Road and Santa Anita.
The proposal is to remodel and expand the existing facility, which
13099
is called Suburban Door. The remodeling will increase the building
size from around 5,000 square feet to over 13,000 square feet and
will be completed in four phases. I am sure the petitioner will be
able to explain the phases in a little more detail. This expansion
will increase the office, display area, and the storage of the
`grrw vehicles inside. The petitioner has been granted a variance for
adding on to a non-conforming building, zero setbacks on the front
and side yards and being deficient 23 parking spaces. The
landscaping on this site is 17%, which is over the 15% required.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence on this petition?
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Fire Marshal indicating they have
reviewed the site plan submitted and they have no objection to the
proposal. Ordinance Enforcement indicates that they have conducted
a zoning review of the referenced petition and the following
deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The existing building is
non-conforming due to its front yard setback. 2. There is
insufficient on-site parking. Please see Zoning Board of Appeals
##9306-101 (attached) which addresses these deficiencies.
Mrs. Fandrei: Scott, we are checking the print we have close up and where is the
parking, to the south end of the building?
Mr. Miller: There is some located there and there is also some located to the
east and front. Once this is completed it will be an L shape
building and the parking will be at the front and the rear.
Mrs. Fandrei: Where is the handicap parking?
'Ne. Mr. Miller: At the southeast corner.
Mrs. Fandrei: They are only required to have one John?
Mr. Nagy: They are required to have 1 for any number up to 25 and 1 for each
25 thereafter.
Mrs. Fandrei: It is difficult to tell where their main entrance is.
Mr. Miller pointed out the entrance on the plan.
Mrs. Fandrei: It would make sense if the handicap space would be closer to the
front door. I am finding, since I have been using the handicap
spaces for about a year and a half, that a lot of these handicap
parking places are quite a ways away so I am going to ask the
petitioner to move that handicap parking over closer to the main
door and ramp.
Mr. Nagy: It looks like they could add one more. It looks like it is wide
enough.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
13100
Robert C. Doyle, Project Architect, 119 South Wildwood, Westland: We have
basically the same site plan. To answer your question, yes the
handicap spot is here. (He pointed this out on the plan) I am
limited to locating another or relocating this one to this spot
simply by the confines of landscaping. Conceivably I could cut
Now into the landscape area another couple of feet in order to provide
the adequate space for that second handicap space. No objection to
that. We have an existing building, which is a rectangle with a
little tail sticking on it. We propose to add a two-story with
basement combination warehouse, office, display area with an atrium
entrance. We have an enclosed garage and a two-story
office/showroom addition to the existing building. We do have
parking in the front of the building and parking in the rear of the
building. We have loading facilities and storage for eight
vehicles in the basement and five vehicles in this garage area,
total of 38 parking spaces. We do have 17% of the land in
greenery. All of the landscaping is existing and we intend to
relocate one or two trees out of this area over to here plus a
couple of shrubs. This is the basement level where we would house
the existing 30 foot dumpster which is sitting on the site. We
would also house the work trailers that sit between the building
and existing retaining wall and we will house eight vehicles,
storage area and employee space. Phase 1 is this building, two
stories with a basement and it would totally contain about 12,178
square feet. Phase 2 is this garage addition and two-story
addition of office area. That would contain a little less than
3,000 square feet. Phase 3 is to renovate the interior of the
existing building and to complete the second story office section
with an addition. For purpose of presentation we do have a model.
We do have photographic representation of this building. (The
model was displayed) We are going to totally redo the existing
facade of the existing building.
Mr. LaPine: One concern I have, none of this addition is going to extend any
further to the south than what is there now? It won't get any
closer to the residents?
Mr. Doyle: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: All your trucks, when I was there the other day you had some parked
against the wall to the south, all your trucks will be parked
underground or in the new garage? Is that correct?
Mr. Doyle: During office business hours correct.
Mr. LaPine: The area where you are now using for storing old doors and wood,
what is going to happen to that area? Where is that going to be
stored?
Mr. Doyle: You are speaking of that which is currently fenced in?
Mr. LaPine: Right.
Mr. Doyle: The dumpster itself will be located in the basement area. The area
where it sits right now is about the middle of the two-story
addition.
13101
Mr. LaPine: How will you get the dumpster from the basement outside?
Mr. Doyle: The vehicle that transports that, it goes down into the drive area
and cables that out and loads it.
Mr. Tent: You have four phases in this development. From the start to end,
what duration are we talking? When would you start and when would
you finish?
Mr. Doyle: The 4th phase, which is extending this second floor level , is at
some future date whenever it is needed. We are anticipating not
later than 1997, but the exterior of the building will be totally
completed by the first of January 1995.
Mr. Tent: By 1997, you are talking about phase 4, which would be the interior
renovation of the second floor?
Mr. Doyle: Yes and this continuation on the second level.
Mrs. Fandrei: If I read the ZBA notes right, your 2nd phase will be a
continuation basically of phase 1. Is that correct? Immediately
following phase 1?
Mr. Doyle: Yes, in fact we will probably start phase 2 before we finish phase
1.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is what I wanted to hear. It will be an ongoing phase 1 and
2 with no lapse in between?
Mr. Doyle: Correct. The only lapse may be between 2 and 3, which is interior
Nor work.
Mrs. Fandrei: Right, but we are more concerned about the exterior.
Mr. Doyle: I understand that.
Mr. Tent: Is this the end now of the expansion?
Mr. Doyle: There will be no further construction on this site.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the owner like to add anything?
Sara Sass, 14490 Hubbard: I want to say we have added onto the building several
times and when we originally bought the property on the first two
corner lots we planned on building this phase 1 that we are talking
about. That was about 12 years ago and the economy wasn't so great
then so we decided to buy a little 20 by 40 building just to get
started and before we even moved in we realized it was too small.
We added our first addition and within two years we needed a second
addition so this really is kind of a dream fulfilled to develop the
entire property. I don't know how many of you remember what this
parcel of land looked like originally. It was three separate lots.
It was literally a dump. Everyone and his brother and his sister
and his cousin dumped in there. When we went to clean it, we paid
13102
and paid and paid to get it cleaned and I think now it is a far
more attractive place to see. We feel it is an addition to the
community and it will be a tremendous tax base so we feel that
rather than move out and build a one-story building spread out,
which would have been a lot less expensive for us, we wanted to
stay in Livonia and we wanted to just expand the operation we had
so we went to a lot of trouble to maximize this space and use it to
the best potential. Those of you who noticed the wood trailer and
the dumpster, those are an eyesore to us as well as you. We feel
that the solution in the basement, which is an expensive solution,
will solve the problem. We don't like the scrap outside, not only
for appearance but we have other door companies, fly-by-night
companies that dump on our property after we are gone. They come
in there and go through our dumpster and rummage through it and we
want to prevent this so we have gone through all this trouble to
locate it in the basement level, including the metal, which we have
to keep separate, and the wood. We are going through a recycling
company that will scrap it and pulverize it and reuse it so rather
than fill up the City dump and the other dumps, we are trying to
reprocess this. I think we are utilizing old doors around the City
and doing a public service as well. I hope it will meet with your
approval because we have gone to a lot of trouble to plan this
properly for everyone's concern.
Mr. Engebretson: During the Zoning Board of Appeals' process one of your neighbors
filed a form of protest that complained about deliveries and things
coming at three o'clock in the morning. Would that be some of
these scavengers and unauthorized dumps?
Mrs. Sass: I think there was one incident where a truck came during the middle
of the night, which is very unusual, and the driver arrived early
and decided to park there and sleep and he left his truck running.
We were unaware of this until we saw the letter. We have notified
the supplier that we don't want this to happen. We don't want any
deliveries before eight o'clock in the morning. We do have a man
that comes in between 7:00 and 7:30 who could accept deliveries but
we need help to unload and the help doesn't get there until eight
o'clock anyway so if they are going to arrive early they need to
find another spot to park.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-201-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
93-10-8-20 by Robert C. Doyle Associates requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct building additions and alter exterior
elevations on the building located at 28003 Five Mile Road in Section
24 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site & Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 10/12/93
by Robert C. Doyle Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
13103
2) That the Elevation Plans dated 10/12/93 by Robert C. Doyle
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That a second handicap parking space shall be added to the site.
as well as subject to the following additional conditions (which were
required by the Zoning Board of Appeals):
1) Phase 1 (construction of the two-story addition and atrium on the
east) shall be completed within 120 days following commencement of
construction;
2) Phase 2 (construction of the addition on the west and the squaring
off of the existing building) shall be completed within 90 days,
which will begin at the completion of Phase I;
3) Phase 3 (renovation of inside of existing building) to be completed
by approximately January of 1995;
4) Phase 4 (completion of interior second story for additional office
space) to be completed when needed;
5) There is to be no outside storage of vehicles or materials returned
from job sites at this location;
6) The Petitioner is to comply with all requirements set forth by the
Fire Marshal with regard to the indoor storage of vehicles;
7) The Petitioner is to schedule the delivery of the (large) truckload
materials at such time that it is least intrusive upon the
`. surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Richard George requesting approval for two wall signs for
the building located at 30303 Plymouth Road in Section 35.
Mr. Miller: The Wine Barrel party store is located in front of the Wonderland
Shopping Center. To be more specific it would be in front of the
K-Mart store. They are requesting two wall signs. Under the
ordinance they are allowed one wall sign not to exceed 66 square
feet. They are proposing two at a total of 117 square feet. They
have gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals and were granted a waiver
for the excessive signage. One sign will be be 53 square feet and
will be located on the front of the building, which faces Plymouth
Road. The other sign will be located to the rear of the store and
will be 64 square feet and it will face the parking lot that exists
for the facility.
Mr. Engebretson: This is another item where we held the petitioner captive even
later hours last week and because the Zoning Board has approved
this variance to have this additional signage, they now become
13104
conforming signs and are noncontroversial and by definition fit
the Zoning Ordinance so we excused this petitioner from coming this
evening.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am disappointed that he has been excused because, first of all I
would like to ask Mr. Nagy when was the Zoning Board meeting when
this variance was approved?
Mr. Nagy: October 5th was the hearing.
Mrs. Fandrei: According to the notes the interior window signage was to be
limited to 15% of the total glass area?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mrs. Fandrei: It very dramatically exceeds that amount. That would have been
effective at that time, wouldn't it?
Mr. Nagy: It becomes effective upon the installation of the signs.
Mrs. Fandrei: So they have until the time of the signs?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Engebretson: If there is no further discussion, a motion would be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
i#10-202-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Richard George requesting
approval for two wall signs for the building located at 30303 Plymouth
Road in Section 35 be approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the Sign Package by Richard George, received by the Livonia
Planning Commission on 7/29/93, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
as well as subject to the following additional conditions (which were
required by the Zoning Board of Appeals):
1) Any interior window signage is to be limited to 15% of the total
glass area of this business;
2) The signs shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after closing.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat
approval for Forest Oaks Subdivision proposed to be located on the east
side of Stonehouse Avenue between Joy Road and Minton Street in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is everything in order?
13105
Mr Nagy: Yes. We have a letter from Engineering indicating that they have
no objections to the final plat as it is in compliance with the
previously approved preliminary plat. Also, from the City Clerk we
have our letter indicating all the financial obligations have been
met.
slaw
Mr. Engebretson: A motion would be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-203-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Forest Oaks Subdivision proposed to be located on the
east side of Stonehouse Avenue between Joy Road and Minton Street in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat is drawn in full compliance with the
Preliminary Plat.
2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat.
3) That the City Clerk has indicated that all financial obligations
imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been satisfied.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval
of the minutes of the 672nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on
October 12, 1993.
..
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-204-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 672nd Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held on October 12, 1993 are hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
93-9-2-22 by Building Committee, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
construct a new credit union facility to be located on the south side of
Five Mile Road between Levan and Golfview Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 20.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-205-93 RESOLVED that, Petition 93-9-2-22 by Building Committee, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct a new credit union facility to be
located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Levan and Golfview
Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 be taken from the table.
13106
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei: I would object to opening this up for discussion, unless the
audience completely understands that this is a requirement of the
`r. Chairman that there only be new information presented. Only new
information by anybody.
Mr. Engebretson: That is the rule tonight. We don't want to rehash all the old
issues that have been gone over and over and over. We want to stay
focused and deal with new information. I think that is your
request and without that agreement you will object.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: As we closed out our meeting last week we had several specific
requests made to the petitioner for some additional information. I
would like to ask the petitioner to present that information and
then if there is any new information on behalf of the residents in
the abutting subdivision, we would invite you to come to the podium
after the petitioner is finished.
Bill Minahan: I am with Building Committee, Inc. What I want to do is try to
answer some of the specific questions that were brought up during
our study session. They generally related to the traffic issue,
not only drive-up traffic that may be generated by the project but
we expanded it to try to include traffic in the parking area as
well for the inside facility. Mr. Chairman, I have some documents
I would like to pass out. The document you have in front of you is
what we call a Member Contact Survey. It is a survey that our
company did of the existing credit facility from December 23, 1992
to January 19, 1993. We have consolidated that information into
what we call an average week to give you a flavor of what the
expected volume would be. On the left hand portion of the bar
graph are the number of member contacts. Along the bottom are the
days of the week. You can see there is a fairly consistent pattern
Monday through Thursday with Friday being a natural peak for any
financial institution. On the bottom portion of the page you can
see that the average number of contacts Monday through Thursday
average 25 contacts per hour. Tuesday and Wednesday they average
19 contacts per hour, Friday and Saturday, 40 contacts per hour.
What we have done, based on the request, is try to show what a peak
volume might be like. On the lower right hand portion of the page
we are showing three peak hours. Each one of those one-hour
periods have between 52 and 61 contacts per hour. I would like to
pass out a second document. The drawing you have in front of you
represents the schematic site plan as it is proposed. The building
is shown in the shaded area, member parking is to the left and the
drive-up facility is to the right. On the bottom portion of the
page you see a continuation from the previous analysis. We are
taking a peak hour look perhaps from someone's back yard onto the
site, what it would mean during a peak hour. As you remember I
mentioned there were 60 contacts per hour during the peak. We have
found over the years there generally is an even break between the
13107
inside contacts to drive-up contacts, which means there would be 30
contacts inside the building and 30 contacts through the drive-up.
The average contact is about two minutes. The drawing shows you
the amount of cars that would be there at any one point in time
during that 60 minute interval. In fact, what we are showing is an
-- unusual case of having a lot of those contacts occur within an
instant, meaning there would be 10 people inside and 10 people to
the drive-up. Traditionally there is an even steady flow
throughout the period. Getting all of them there at one time,
again would show you there would be a very small amount of volume
of people there at any one point in time. We acknowledge the fact
that there is a constant contact and we acknowledge the fact we
will have 60 contacts during the peak hours but they are not all
there at once. I also have in previous discussions alluded to some
of the information we have gathered over 15 years of doing this.
One of them is the type of charter of this credit union, it being a
closed charter credit union. Only members of parishes in Livonia
can join. We have brought other examples of clients we have around
the midwest to show you that the 60 contacts per hour during peak
is a relatively normal volume for a credit union. There are some
that do considerably more. We are aware of a bank down the street
that anybody can join that will do a lot more than this. We also
noted their inside lobby is not open during some of those peak
hours which exacerbates the problem. We would not have that here.
We are contending that this is a low volume, low impact type of a
development for this site. We hope this information furthers that
cause. I would like to go on with some of the other issues. If
you have some questions, I would be happy to answer those.
Mr. Morrow: To digress a little, when you were choosing a site, did you look at
any other banks in the area as far as assuming the facility?
Mr. Minahan: No we did not.
Mr. Morrow: I am thinking about Manufacturers or Comerica maybe coming on
stream.
Mr. Minahan: It has been our experience sir that banks are in heated competition
with credit unions right now and generally will not sell their
facilities to other banking institutions, particularly credit
unions.
Mr. Morrow: Your facility on Plymouth Road, what will happen to that?
Mr. Minahan: It will be sold.
Mr. Morrow: It will be sold and will they be permitted to use that as a credit
union or banking facility?
Mr. Minahan: No. It would be my opinion, with respect to the members of the
credit union here, that facility has outlived it usefulness and is
not appropriate for any financial institution.
Mr. Morrow: It could if someone wanted it.
Mr. Minahan: It could be but it is highly unlikely.
13108
Mr. Morrow: Is that something the staff could answer? Is that use running with
the land?
Mr. Nagy: The zoning certainly does not preclude anyone else from using it.
Mr. Morrow: So we could make the same case on this if for some reason in the
future you would leave this site, the use could be far more
intense.
Mr. Minahan: That is up to you.
Mr. Morrow: One of the considerations here is when we grant a waiver use it is
not specifically for your use because you could sell it tomorrow
and we could get a more intense use or perhaps a less intense use.
It is just a consideration we have to make.
Mr. Minahan: Can I follow up on that. These buildings are small buildings on
large sites with lots of paving around them because of all the
drives. They also have an intense amount of equipment both for
banking purposes and security purposes. The total development of
these projects on a per square foot basis are considerably higher
than I think many of the projects that are before you for
consideration. We are talking $140 to $160 a square foot. That is
an awful lot for these buildings. The likelihood that they would
leave or sell this building to another use that would have a higher
intense use for this land, at that kind of a capital investment is
very slight.
Mrs. Fandrei: Is this proposed purchase through the Archdiocese of Detroit?
Mr. Minahan: No it is not.
Mrs. Fandrei: It is not a tax free endeavor?
Mr. Minahan: No the credit union would be paying property taxes.
Mr. Alanskas: The 61 contacts per hour, that is assumed from what size
membership?
Mr. Minahan: That is assumed from its current size membership, which is
approximately 4,000.
Mr. Alanskas: So if you had 8,000, then you would have 122 contacts per hour. It
would be double.
Mr. Minahan: If you accept the assumption that we are going to get 80%
penetration, which would be a remarkable achievement, not one that
has ever been handled throughout the country.
Mr. Alanskas: You are not going in there to get smaller.
Mr. Minahan: We plan to be able to expand and grow starting off from a very
minor use on the site and perhaps getting up to perhaps 40%
penetration. If we doubled our membership it would be phenomenal.
Mr. Alanskas: The more members you get, the more traffic you are going to have.
13109
Mr. Minahan: Without a doubt.
Mr. LaPine: These averages you got, where did you get these from.
Mr. Minahan: From their current location on Plymouth Road.
Mr. LaPine: That amazes me because I was out there Saturday and that is such a
small site, I don't even know how you could get that many people in
that place to park their cars. I don't really know where all those
people park.
Mr. Minahan: The idea is they can come in and handle a transaction within a two
to five minute period. As they trickle in throughout that period
of time, it shows you the type of low impact that these businesses
have. They don't all come at one time. That facility is a
perfectly good example of that not happening.
Mr. LaPine: You say they have an average of 25 cars in a hour. I will have to
assume there are at least 20 cars parked there at one time.
Mr. Minahan: No sir. Those 25 contacts occur over a 60 minute period of time.
Each contact is two to five minutes. They are coming in, they are
going out. We might have three or four cars parked at one time but
never all of them at the same time.
Mr. LaPine: I don't believe that. That doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. Minahan: If you would like, I have some examples of other credit unions,
both opened and closed, and banks showing surveys that we have
gotten over the last 15 years showing the amount of peak hour
rte► contacts. Some of them are quite high but they also have a higher
membership or a higher asset size.
Mr. LaPine: I am not doubting that. In my own mind, from being out there
Saturday, Saturday being a busy day according to your calculations,
I just can't believe that location does that kind of business
because there is no parking there. They had arrows going in and
out the same way. We didn't know if we were going in or going out
the right way because the arrows were both ways. It was a bad
location. I commend you for trying to find a new location and
moving. I think you are making a smart move. My problem is the
counts. From that location from what I have seen, it is hard for
me to believe. If you say they are right, I have nothing to back
me up to disprove what you are saying.
Mr. Minahan: I think this gets to the root of some of the problems concerning
traffic with these businesses. It is not like a McDonalds that
gets a huge crush of business between twelve and one o'clock. That
is not the way these businesses operate. You are seeing for
yourself in a terribly deficient location and a deficient site how
you are able to put that many people through simply because you are
moving them through in a quick and orderly basis.
13110
Mr. Alanskas: I was out there myself twice during the week and I spoke to your
Assistant Manager and asked how many employees you have at the site
on Plymouth Road and she said a maximum of six people. Here you
show employee parking for 17 people, which means you are going to
have a lot more employees.
Mr. Minahan: That is not true. What we did with this drawing was part of a
study that we produced for the Board of Directors to show them what
the maximum utilization would be. Is this site worthwhile based on
what we can do here? There is no need for that amount of parking
for employees either now or in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Alanskas: So you are only going to have six employees at the new facility?
Mr. Minahan: That is the way we will start out.
Mr. Tent: What was the reason for choosing this particular location for this
intense use?
Mr. Minahan: It got down to a very scientific method. We took a look at all the
sites that were available around here and this is the only one that
would really fit our needs and our requirements within the budget
we have. That is part of the problem that we have right now.
There are a limited amount of places that would fit the size
requirements, the proportion requirements and the access
requirements we would have for this building.
Mr. Tent: I presume they want to locate in Livonia because this is probably
their home base operation.
`40' Mr. Minahan: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: Have you had any alternate sites? In most cases when you do select
a site you have a backup site just in case.
Mr. Minahan: No sir we don't. This is really all we are looking at right now.
It is an unusual circumstance. We have purchased property for
clients of ours all around the Detroit area and usually they would
come up with a number of different alternatives. This is an
unusual case. We don't have that many alternatives.
Mr. Tent: We have sections of the City where it would be conducive to this
type of zoning. I spent an hour and a half there today looking
over the site and it is an impact there on the residential
neighborhood. I had an open mind as to what this would do. Is
there another place an operation of this type could be located? It
disturbs me that this is a residential area and with the intensive
use and I was wondering if you had some other location as a backup.
Mr. Minahan: Another issue that was raised concerned the loosely term tree line.
It is more like a brush line running along the Bell Drain. Part of
the requirements here would be to remove the flood plain line. We
are still waiting for DNR approval of that. If that is the case,
it would then require us to elevate that new line to the existing
\r-
13111
elevation lines in order to comply with their requirements. If we
did that, there is a strong possibility that that brush line along
the Bell Drain would be disturbed and if that is the case, we have
in our landscaping plan we have proposed a fairly intent planting
to shield this from the neighborhood. That would take care of that
particular problem and in a period of time we are convinced that
area would grow back after we fill it. It would certainly finish
that off and make it look as attractive as we can in order to
comply with the DNR requirements and to provide a pleasant view for
the neighborhood.
Mr. Engebretson: Regarding the specific question as to what you are going to do if
you need to fill two and a half feet, if that tree goes it will be
replaced by something else.
Mr. Minahan: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: I think you pretty much covered the points we asked you to.
Mr. LaPine: One other point about the lights. You were going to tell us
approximately where the light posts would be. On this new plan that
you submitted, is that where you propose to put the light posts.
Mr. Minahan: That is an existing light pole that is out on the public property.
Mr. LaPine: How about your internal lighting?
Mr. Minahan: We will use directional lighting the same as we have used in other
developments of this nature so none of the lighting will spill off
of our line. We will provide some type of security lighting on the
building probably underneath the canopy. A light that would not be
seen from the neighborhood at all. We would comply with the
requirements I am sure the City has for lighting.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you very much for your cooperation. Before I go to the
audience we have some new correspondence we have received and a
copy of a letter from the Mayor. John, I think you said there is
other correspondence as well.
Mr. Nagy: Our City Engineer submitted a letter to the Planning Commission
referencing subject petition and stating pursuant to a request from
the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 19, 1993
relative to the subject petition, this office has reviewed the
condition of the double box culvert under Golfview Avenue south of
Five Mile. The box culvert sections (8' x 10' ) and our findings
are depicted on the attached sketch. Our findings may be
summarized as follows: 1) There is approximately a 2' to 2 1/2'
build up of silt in the bottom of the box culverts. 2) There is a
10" to 12" build up of silt in the 27" storm sewer outlet for the
subdivision which is connected to the box culvert along the south
wall of the structure. 3) There is some debris located within the
structure (garbage can, barrel, etc. ) These items would tend to,
of course, act as somewhat an impediment to the flow not only in
13112
the ditch area but also in the main storm sewer outlet for the
subdivision. We are by copy of this letter advising the City's
Public Service Division of these conditions so that appropriate
action can be taken in accordance with their priorities for storm
sewer maintenance throughout the City. We trust this will provide
you with the information requested. Should you have any questions,
please feel free to contact this office. We also have received a
copy of some internal correspondence, interoffice communication,
from DNR. It appears to be a letter from a staff member by the
name of Punjabi and it was to another staff member by the name of
Jennifer Beam wherein they reference the subject file and the
request of Rennolds Development Company to fill within the
flood plain. It appears upon reading the correspondence that this
gentleman, Mr. Punjabi, was asked to submit some language for a
possible denial of the Bell Branch Flood Plain correspondence.
This was just given to us today. It is interesting to note the
date of this letter is September 29, which predates the hearing the
DNR actually held on this matter on October 7, 1993. I just wanted
to let you know this correspondence was submitted to our office and
as you pointed out we also have a letter from the Mayor. Do you
want me to read it or will you read it?
Mr. Engebretson: I will read it. Regarding the issue with the DNR, one of the
residents supplied me with a complete package of material here and
it is my impression that the proposal was, in fact, to recommend a
denial of this relief that was being requested unless a qualified
engineer could supply adequate information that would deal with the
issue in a manner that would allow the fill to occur without
causing any impact and I presume that has been done. In fact, I
think I saw a copy of correspondence that, in my impression, that
`w is what it said. Not being an expert on that subject I am not
really sure. Is it your impression that issue is still somewhat
murky?
Mr. Nagy: To the extent that DNR has not rendered a recommendation. That is
the status of it. They are still taking the matter under
advisement but with respect to the matter of a qualified study
being made by an engineer satisfying the criteria for DNR to
properly evaluate the impact of the alterations of the flood plain
onto the Bell Branch, that information has been furnished to DNR
and your applicant and petitioner here this evening is prepared to
comment to you on the exact status of that. They had contact as
recently as yesterday and today with the gentleman handling that
matter so they are prepared to comment on that issue.
Mr. Engebretson: I think that would be appropriate. Can you just give us an
update as to where that all stands?
Ralph Houghton: I am one of the representatives of the owners of the property.
Mr. Nagy brought this memo to my attention today. I took time to
point out to Mr. Nagy, as he indicated, this memo was dated
September 29 and at the public hearing that the DNR held here in
Livonia on the 5th of October, one of the primary issues that came
out was we understand what you are doing but has there been any
13113
professional hydraulics study conducted to support your
contentions? The DNR representative that was there was not
familiar with whether that had been done or not. After the meeting
we met with our engineers and got together what they call a Hec 2
. Hydraulic Study that had actually been conducted by the DNR itself
back in 1986 when the Golfview culvert was designed. The design of
that culvert and the establishment of that grade plain was based on
that hydraulic study. We got those materials together, took them
to the DNR approximately a week after the hearing and they are
reviewing those. I spoke with Mr. Punjabi this afternoon just to
make sure that I was up to date. He indicated to me they had all
the materials they needed, they had not reached a final decision,
they were looking at it. They felt the hydraulic study did support
our contention. There might be a minor alteration in the wetland
area where there is a jog in the river. We had indicated that on
the plans we submitted to them and they are looking at that now.
All I can tell you is they have all the information and they are
reviewing it.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you very much. I had a conversation with the Mayor this
afternoon and he has supplied us with an internal memo which I will
read. It is addressed to the Planning Commission regarding the
waiver use for the credit union facility at Five Mile and Golfview.
"I know that you have been struggling with serious deliberation
regarding the above noted proposal. I, too, have been concerned
for many of the same reasons that you and some of the abutting
property owners have offered. After some deliberation I have come
to two major conclusions: (1) That the land has been zoned OS and
that it is reasonable to expect it will be developed in an office
Noir. approval
However, the credit union proposal requires a waiver use
approval suggesting an intensity beyond what was contemplated with
the zoning. In fact, the requested filling of flood plain and the
extent of site coverage and traffic flows anticipated corroborate
an intensity that is not beneficial to the neighborhood or the
site. (2) Development of the overall parcel beginning from the
east instead of from the west adjacent to the Bingham development
is not logical and subjects the site (and the neighborhood) to
greater potential damage than need be. I would, therefore,
respectfully request the Commission to give all due consideration
to a recommendation of denial of the petition." That was signed
Robert D. Bennett, Mayor.
Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to new
information? If so, please come down to the podium. We really
don't want to rehash any old issues here tonight.
Joel Johnson, 36092 Parkhurst: I would like to point out to the Planning
Commission that the rezoning of this property that took place six
years ago is inconsistent with the Master Plan of the City of
Livonia, which shows this area as low density residential. The
Master Plan, which was updated last in 1991, shows this to be the
lowest density for any type of development. I have a copy of the
Master Plan right here if anybody would like to take a look at it.
Now you want us to consider intensifying the zoning, which would be
13114
more inconsistent with the Master Plan. If the City had wanted
this area to this extreme, they would have rezoned it C-1 six years
ago rather than OS as it is now termed. There is an adjacent four
acres that is also for sale by the same owner and if this 1.6 is
*ow allowed to be intensified then obviously so will the remaining
four. When and where is this going to end? I would like to
present pictures showing the property and the houses behind the
property in question. I find it offensive that the Planning
Commission would consider a traffic flow which extends to the very
back of the lot allowing a stack up of cars. If you note in the
picture the homes that back up to this property do not have deep
lots. I have also included a picture of the back of Bingham's
Service Station, which is adjacent to this property. In the
picture you will note their parking lot runs within two feet of the
ravine. We think this is appalling that the Planning Commission
would allow this with no regard to the homes backed up to it and we
see this credit union as a duplication. I am interested in knowing
if the Planning Commission has requested a traffic study since the
new site plan was issued and if it has considered getting an
evaluation from the Wayne County Health Department as to affects of
exhaust, etc. from this project. Almost all the residents are
against the relocation and filling of the flood plain and wetlands
and also the intensification of the zoning for the proposed credit
union. The residents do not want a credit union, the increased
traffic or a driveway adjacent to their backyards. Can you the
Planning Commission approve this knowing we local residents are
against the proposal? I would also like to ask if any of the
Planning Commission members are members of a credit union and also
if they would be members of this particular parish credit union.
"ola. Carl Short, 15065 Woodside: I would like to compliment the Commission first of all
for saving the best to last. I appreciate the extent of the
traffic studies that were obtained in the past week. One issue
that was not addressed, however, was the proximity of the left-hand
turn traffic. The proximity of the ingress for the credit union as
opposed to the left-hand turn traffic into Rennolds Ravine and also
into the subdivision on the north onto Golfview. If you get 30
cars an hour in rush hour traffic, what happens to the people that
live in the opposing subdivisions? What happens to the traffic
patterns there? I suggest a long, hard look at that issue.
Jack Smiley: I am the Executive Director of the Detroit Autubon Society, 1320
North Campbell, Royal Oak: We are the local chapter of the
National Autobon Society serving the entire southeast Michigan
region. We have approximately 300 members that reside here in
Livonia. As to a little bit of my background I have also been
involved with Friends of the Rouge. I have been Vice President for
five years. In addition to my education at U of M, I have two
years of graduate study in Urban Planning at Wayne State with
emphasis in environmental planning. Incidentally, I have also been
a real estate broker for over 15 years. Just to frame my comments.
First of all I have inspected the site and I have reviewed many of
the comments and documents relative to this project. A couple of
things stood out. The developer's own consultant had a
recommendation "It is recommended that no development be proposed
`rr..
13115
"in these wetland developments" referring, of course, to the
wetlands. The second thing that really stood out, there appears to
be a tendency for the City to rely solely on the DNR on matters of
wetlands and flood plain issues. It is my personal belief that the
'411m. local communities are best positioned to protect the public
welfare. The DNR is not infallible. They have made mistakes and
they do make mistakes and I would submit that the DNR and the
City's allowance of the flood plain fill in 1986 was a mistake and
that the residents with wet basements and cracked basements and
frequent use of sump pumps, they have borne the burden of that
mistake. But that is behind us and the question now basically is
are you going to increase those flooding problems to these
residents? Without question filling the flood plain would do two
things. One, it will increase flood levels, and two it will
increase stream flow velocities. As a matter of policy, I do not
think we should allow these negative impacts to occur. It is
certainly much easier to relocate or find an alternate site for
development. In reviewing some of the comments I also noted that
one of the residents referred to "natural floods" and "natural
erosions". These I feel were used in erroneous fashion because the
flooding conditions we experience in Livonia throughout the Rouge
basin is almost entirely man made. Our task right now is to try to
alleviate some of the flooding problems that we have created. I do
have a question. The E.F.A. is now requiring many communities to
have storm water discharge permits. I am not sure what the status
is for the City of Livonia. Do you know if the City has progressed
in developing a storm water plan for the City?
Mr. Engebretson: That is an engineering issue sir. You are moving pretty far
off the area that we deal with here.
Mr. Smiley: That was directly related to the storm water because the storm
water directly relates to floods. In closing, I have two
recommendations, one that the wetland destruction and flood plain
fill should not be allowed, and two, the City should develop a plan
to lessen the excessive flooding conditions which some Livonia
residents experience. That can be done in two ways including
creating wetlands and enlarging flood plains to increase flood
storage capacity. In looking at the site this might be an ideal
parcel to consider not filling the flood plain in but actually
enlarging it to benefit area residents.
Faye McIntire: I live at Lot 36. First of all I would like to thank you for
listening to our concerns. We do know you have taken considerable
time with us. We object to this because of the increased intensity
that this is going to bring. I want to make that clear. When we
bought our house we knew office could go in but we did not bargain
for an intense use of this nature and one that would require fill
in. We are aware that office can go in but the intensity of use is
not something we bargained on. It will interfere with the
enjoyment and use of my home and my property. I have submitted a
petition to you signed by one hundred percent of the abutting
residents and you have those documents, and a second petition
signed by a large majority of the rest of the neighborhood saying
13116
we do not want the credit union because we do not want the
increased intensity of use for this property. Please deny this
petition. Thank you.
Vince Moceri: I am Vice President of Fairway Farms Subdivision. We are joining
in completely with Rennolds Ravine hoping you are going to deny
this whole thing. Nobody has considered the fact that there are
already almost 20 driveways in a quarter mile stretch of Five Mile
Road. Adding three more is not going to help anything. The
project is too big for the site not even counting future expansion.
They have a three driveway plan now. What is wrong if they
downsize this with one boulevard system into the property which
would reduce any stacking in the left turn lane. One ingress,
egress boulevard plan similar to the subdivision. I will end by
saying the petitioner builds these things and leaves but the
residents have to live with it.
Don Anderson, 15121 Golfview: That is four houses from Five Mile but I do not
border the ravine. I simply wanted to call to your attention the
rather aggressive advertising campaign that the credit union is
engaged in at my parish, which is St. Colettes. I have the church
bulletins and the advertisements for the credit union have become
very prominent. I am not even sure they advertised in the past.
The statistics that we have heard are statistics on past usage not
statistics about what they intend to do with the property in the
future. I think this is a clear indication of what they are up to.
They are good businessmen. I don't think they belong on this
particular site. I think the project is too ambitious for that
site.
Noir Donna Donaldson, 36114 Parkhurst: I don't have anything new to add but we do have
a lot of people here tonight that came and hoped to be able to
stand up here and speak and if we can at least allow them to stand
and show their opposition.
Mr. Engebretson: That is a good idea.
Approximately 40 people stood up in the audience.
Mr. Alanskas: Without rehashing this over and over again, I think most of us have
been out to your homes, we have walked your properties. I myself
have, I have been in your homes, and really as a waiver use my
concern until last week was the water and when Gary Clerk from the
Engineering Department came to our study meeting before you and
really explained how the water flows, how many acres it comes from,
my thought is 100% you would not have a water problem if this is
approved. I don't think you would have a problem with new
landscaping at the back of this property but I do believe traffic
is a big problem. I am very concerned about traffic. In my own
conscience I couldn't vote for this if there were stacking on Five
Mile and accidents. I know this facility would grow with business
and I think it is not proper for this site.
13117
Mrs. Fandrei: I have just one comment about the traffic also, which is a concern
of mine. By the petitioner's own graph I find a Friday night five
o'clock to six o'clock, one car per minute a bit excessive. I am
concerned about waiver use on this property opening the door to
continued waiver use petitions on the rest of the property.
Besides intensity I have those two concerns.
'tor.
Mr. Engebretson: The real issue here tonight is the matter of waiver use, which is
a zoning matter. The zoning district here is professional office
services and the credit union that is being proposed is not a
permitted use. There are a number of permitted uses as we have
discussed in past meetings that may have various levels of
intensity but it has been determined that a credit union is an
intensity of use that is beyond what would normally be permitted
and therefore it requires this process. In order for a waiver use
to be granted the ordinance requires that all of the following
general standards are met in order for a waiver use to be approved
and the ordinance then goes on to list ten specific items all of
which have to be met in order for a waiver use to be granted and
they includes several, in my opinion, that are not met. One is
that the proposed use must be of such location, size and character
that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly
development of the surrounding neighborhood. Another is that it
will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood nor
unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. I am
paraphrasing a bit and moving around, pedestrian traffic and
particularly of children, vehicular turning movements, off street
parking, etc. Another condition is that the site layout and
periods of operation of any proposed use must be designed to
eliminate any possible nuisance likely to emanate therefrom which
might be noxious to the occupants of any other nearby permitted
�1ry uses, whether by reason of dust, noise, fumes, vibration, smoke or
lights. There are several others but clearly there are several of
these conditions that must be met that aren't met and for that
reason I think it is incumbent on the Planning Commission, after
having listened to hours and hours of testimony and having each of
us having made multiple trips to that site, I know I have been
there at least seven times, to make a decision. I know this
petition has received more attention from this body than any other
petition filed in 1993. We have taken it very seriously. We have
tried to do our work diligently. We have tried to be fair to all
concerned, the property owners, the developer, the proposed
occupant of this waiver use if it were to be approved, and, of
course, the community that abuts this property. Having said all
that I think it is time to end this discussion and to entertain a
motion. To drag this out any further, I think it is clear we have
asked for new information and basically we have dealt with old
information in different words.
Mr. Tent: I would like to make the comment that I find nothing wrong with the
credit union but in this location it is too intense of a use. I
spent maybe an hour and a half there today because my mind hadn't
been made up yet at this particular point. Going through the area
and looking over that particular site, I too agree with this being
13118
a waiver use it really intensifies the use of that land. I was in
hopes we had an alternate location for our friends to locate in but
I am sure they will find something else. As far as the water
levels, etc. I think I am satisfied that could be taken care of and
it would have been something that would have been controllable but
the intensive use, the stack up of the cars, I stood in backyards
`" and I saw what the people would be looking over at that particular
point. I don't think I would want to look at that situation
either: In this particular case while I feel we have a need for
credit unions here in the City, I think this location isn't the
right spot so I am going to vote against this.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-206-93 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 28, 1993 on Petition 93-9-2-22 by Building Committee, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to construct a new credit union facility
to be located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Levan and
Golfview Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
93-9-2-22 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 be detrimental to and not in harmony
with the surrounding residential uses in the area.
Nr. 3) That the proposed use will cause an unacceptable increase in
vehicular traffic which will conflict with the existing traffic
generated by the abutting and surrounding residential areas.
4) That the proposed use being quasi-commercial in nature is not
compatible with the abutting residential 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. Morrow: Not to belabor the point but I was concerned about the waiver of
use from the beginning. We put a lot of hours in as you indicated
and I don't want to steal any of your thunder but one of the
reasons that sometimes we are construed as, you get the impression
we are favoring a particular site plan. Ultimately the City
Council will probably determine this if this denial petition goes
through and we want to send the best plan forward addressing the
concerns you had about the water we have heard here tonight. We
are going to make a slight improvement in that through your input.
We certainly appreciate the fact that the credit union does
business in Livonia and my vote is not against them. My vote is
strictly a matter of zoning and the waiver that is required to go
along with that, as far as demonstrating you can overcome those
things. That is basically why I support the denying resolution.
13119
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Morrow I would like to make one minor technical correction if
I may. If this denying resolution carries, then the petitioner has
the option of appealing that decision to the City Council. It
won't necessarily go. He may choose to consider all that is going
'Nov on and not pursue it further. If they do choose to pursue the
issue, then the Council will go through similar hearings. This
body's documentation that has been developed over the various
meetings that we have had will go forward to the City Council.
Those of you that are interested in pursuing the issue would be
well advised to call the City Council office to determine whether
or not it has been appealed and to be notified when the Council has
such meetings. We don't know what the petitioner will do and at
the moment we don't know what will happen to this resolution.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 673rd Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on October 26, 1993 was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
. .._10---iii
Raym nd W. Tent, Acting Secretary
ATTEST: Jt ( ) '1.1.' n
'0411. Ja Engebrtson, Chairman
jg