HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1993-02-09 12659
MINUTES OF THE 658th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 9, 1993, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 658th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Conrad Gniewek Robert Alanskas
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent R. Lee Morrow
Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei, James C. McCann
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director,
and Scott Miller, Planning Technician, 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 a rehearing of
Petition 92-10-1-25 by American House requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor Road and
Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32 from C-4 to R-9I.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence regarding this petition?
Mr. Nagy: Nothing new. We have the original correspondence when we had our
initial hearing. We had a letter at that time from Engineering
that indicated they had no objections to the rezoning proposal. We
have a letter from the petitioner indicating that the original site
plan submitted for the rezoning process provided for site area of
2.2 acres to be rezoned. The renovation plan at the time of the
original submission provided for 48 units within the renovated
project, which was acceptable on the 2.2 acres site. Further on
-
site investigation found that the existing facility couldbe
12660
renovated to provide a total of 51 units. The higher unit count
would require a site area of 2.35 acres, however, to meet the city
density requirements. The minor revision increasing the site area
to 2.35 areas has been incorporated into the site plan dated
January 8, 1993 and submitted for your review. This was signed by
James Pappas of Fusco, Shaffer & Pappas, Inc.
Mr. Engebretson: Just to get everybody up to speed here this was referred back to
the Planning Commission by the City Council as a result of that
small area there. Is the petitioner here?
Jim Pappas: I am with the firm of Fusco, Shaffer & Pappas, Architects. My
address is 28382 Franklin Road, Southfield. The purpose of our
visit here this evening is the slight revision to the site plan
that we have produced. The modification of the site plan from the
last time we were before the Planning Commission is the property
line along this portion of the property basically was located in
this area. (He pointed this out on the map) Finding that on an
on-site inspection in determining what we could do with the
existing facility, we found we could renovate the facility to
provide for 51 units in lieu of the 48 originally anticipated.
This required the larger parcel to meet the Livonia density
requirements. With that in mind, we shifted the property line
slightly to provide for the larger parcel. Basically I am here to
answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Alanskas: The additional three units, are they the same size as the original
48?
Mr. Pappas: Yes.
Mr. Tent: The American House you are proposing here, is that similar to the
other American Houses or is this different because it is a
high-rise?
Mr. Pappas: It is a similar operation and similar management.
Mr. Tent: It would take the same type of personnel?
Mr. Pappas: Correct.
Mr. Tent: You are going to renovate the entire building?
Mr. Pappas: That is correct. There will be minor renovations to the exterior.
The majority of the renovations will be interior.
Mr. Tent: When are you planning on having it finished?
Mr. Pappas: We are planning to start the renovations as soon as we can get
finished with the rezoning.
Mr. Tent: Then you will be in operation some time this summer?
Mr. Pappas: Hopefully by the end of the summer.
12661
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, will we be seeing a site plan on this?
Mr. Pappas: Yes you will. They will have to bring it back for site plan
approval.
\" o
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-10-1-25 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-30-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Petition 92-10-1-25 by American House requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor
Road and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32 from C-4 to R-9I,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 92-10-1-25 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for much needed
facilities to house a segment of the senior citizen population.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a use which is
compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will remove existing commercial
zoning which is no longer needed to provide for commercial
services.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
%"" #i543, as amended.
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
92-12-1-27 by F. Patrick Devine on behalf of KA-DE Investments
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Lyndon
Avenue, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, from
R-2 to OS.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department would have no objections to this rezoning
proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner step forward.
Pat Devine, on behalf of KA-DE Investments: Our plan is to rezone to use the
property as an office. We do have an architect here if you have
any questions
12662
Dan DiComo, 15875 Middlebelt, Livonia: I am representing Kamp-DiComo Associates and
also representing our client here. I will quickly explain the site
plan as it exists because further site plan development has really
not progressed beyond the use of this structure. What you have
here is Lyndon to the south, Farmington Road to the east, with the
property surrounding the east and the north side being Metro
Vision. The Metro Vision building actually abuts the north
property line and part of the east property line and then there is
a masonry retaining wall for the rest of the portion all the way
down to Lyndon. The western portion of the property is abutted by
Silver Village, the City's senior housing project. Presently, the
plan will stay as it is right now. There is no planned site
development besides making the building accessible to the
physically handicapped and, of course, sprucing up the exterior of
the building. It is presently in good shape, as far as the actual
physical condition, so it isn't going to take much besides the
reworking of the front existing portion, which is going to be
turned into a reception area and the ramp that will bring the
physically handicapped people up to the building. Inside they are
planning on doing a little bit of renovation just to make it work
more like an office but actually staying within the confines of the
building as the exterior is right now. What we have proposed are
very minor renovations basically eliminating closets to make
offices more usable besides, of course, the lobby or reception
area. Besides that, like I said there is not much change to the
property. We have done a rendered elevation. What they have tried
to do is look at some of the existing or other buildings that have
been renovated within the City and in adjoining cities which have
been turned from residential use into law offices or other types of
,ar. offices. They have looked around and tried to find a color scheme
basically which would, of course, please them and also give a good
face to the community so if they ever decided to expand or add
another couple of offices on, they would be able to make the
structure tie in and still look residential. They plan on keeping
this facility always. Like I said those further plans have not yet
been developed.
Mr. Tent: Mr. DiComo, are they proposing any signage on the property?
Mr. DiComo: At the present time there is not any sign proposed on the site
plan.
Mr. Tent: If you are going to utilize the existing building and it is going
to be a law office, you are going to have to get started and
advertise the location. How are you going to do that?
Mr. DiComo: I am sure there will be signs but presently we have not delved into
that area.
Mr. Tent: You are aware, because it is a frame building, you are going to
have to get a variance from the Building Code Board of Appeals?
Mr. DiComo: I forgot to mention that but we have already applied to the
Building Code Board of Appeals to allow the client to use this wood
frame structure as an office.
r..
12663
Mr. Tent: How many attorneys are you going to have in the building?
Mr. DiComo: Two right now. There might be a third. On the main level there is
only room for two.
Mr. Tent: John, if they decide to put up a sign, will they have to come
before us?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly. It is a control zone. Before any sign permit is issued
either for a wall sign or freestanding sign, they would have to get
your approval along with Council's.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. DiComo, on your rendering you show all these trees, are they
there at the present time?
Mr. DiComo: Presently there are a lot of large trees to the west of the
building. There is a garage that is back there also. We plan on
retaining all the trees on the property. There is no need to
remove any of the existing trees.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make is we must be reminded we are talking
about zoning here tonight and we don't want to get too much into
the area of site plan and the building because we certainly can't
condition zoning on what we are seeing here tonight although we do
like to have an idea of what we are going to be doing but we
certainly can't guarantee what the outcome of the site plan might
be in the future. We want to look at the zoning. I don't have a
big problem with the zoning but I just don't want to get too much
into site plan, as one Commissioner.
*ft.
Mr. Gniewek: I go along with Mr. Morrow. I realize we are just looking at
zoning tonight. However, there is one question I am sure other
people will raise once this particular facility will start in
operation, and that will be the problem with parking in the area.
What does your preliminary plan show as far as areas for parking?
Mr. DiComo: Right now there is an existing drive that goes up the west side of
the property and goes back to the garage. It is not presently
paved and there has been some discussion and this was also part of
our physically handicapped barrier-free ramps discussions on where
the parking would take place. There has been some thoughts of
developing this as a nice planted area since this already has some
trees on it and already has the garage. What we decided right now
is for sure we are going to keep the barrier free parking on the
west end of the property and possibly the law firm parking on this
side of the property for the people who will be in there daily and
any future parking for the clients would be on the far side.
Mr. Gniewek: The only reason I mentioned it at this time is because I know the
seniors that are abutting on that side of the building would be
concerned with some of the parking that would occur in that area
and I just wanted you to be cognizant of that problem if it arises
in the future. I have no problem with the zoning. In fact, I
think the Master Plan does show that area as potential office
zoning.
12664
Mr. LaPine: John, once this is zoned OS and the building is approved by the
Building Code Board of Appeals, a wall would be required on the
west side because it abuts residential?
Mr. Nagy: Yes but they do have the option of providing a greenbelt.
Mr. LaPine: When the Building Code Board of Appeals grant a variance for the
use of that building, is that grant forever or just for a certain
period of time?
Mr. Nagy: Normally it is for a specific period of time. They usually do
condition their approvals but it is subject to their review.
Rarely do they just grant it perpetually.
Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to the rezoning. I do have a problem with the
building but we can deal with that when we deal with the site plan.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-12-1-27 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-31-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Petition 92-12-1-27 by F. Patrick Devine on behalf of KA-DE
Investments requesting to rezone property located on the north side of
Lyndon Avenue, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
21, from R-2 to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 92-12-1-27 he approved subject to the
granting of a variance from the Building Code Board of Appeals for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land
Use Plan which recommends office use for the subject property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning and uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical extension
of an adjacent existing OS zoning district.
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. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
92-12-2-57 by Handy Andy requesting waiver use approval to expand the
area utilized for outdoor sales of garden supplies on property located
on the west side of Middlebelt Road between I-96 and Plymouth Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26.
12665
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We
have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and the Fire
Marshal's office stating their offices would have no objections to
this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating their office has no objections to this
proposal, however they would like to point out the generally poor
condition of the property and the accumulation of trash and debris.
They state there is an ongoing problem with the bales of cardboard
and waste paper generated by the tenant, F & M Distributing. We
have also received on this date a note from the Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating the items requiring correction that
were the subject of the violations of October, 1990 and December,
1990, as communicated to you in previous memos, have been resolved.
The comments in my letter of February 1, 1993 address all
outstanding problems on this site.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step down.
Dan Frantz: I am with the Handy Andy Corporation. I have with me Bob Backus,
the District Manager. Basically to briefly describe our petition,
it involves the northerly sector of our property which we currently
occupy 21,000 square feet in an enclosed fence area, which we house
garden materials. Our proposal basically is to remove a small
canopy in this area and the wooden shed and enlarge that to a
larger, more attractive canopy that would correspond to our
remodeled canopy on the front. The area in concern is we would
like to expand the garden center approximately 4800 square feet to
the northwest portion of our property, continue this chain link
fence back and landscape that portion of the area which is viewed
from Schoolcraft. Currently we are remodeling our facade out in
front and will loop the side entry toward the south. The garden
center canopy would basically be green to correspond and be in
contrast to the color of the brick and it will be approximately 16
feet high. It will basically tie our entire remodeling together.
I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Gniewek: At one time you were storing items outside the present proposed
area up close to the fence at the rear of the property. There were
bags of peat, dirt, different things that cars could drive up to
and pick up. All that will now be enclosed?
Mr. Frantz: Yes, there will be nothing outside.
Mr. Tent: Did you jump the gun by knocking out that wall opening to start the
addition?
Mr. Frantz: No, we are remodeling the interior of the store right now.
Mr. Tent: Is that why you changed the opening?
Mr. Frantz: No. What we did was put one receiving door for the lumber
`` department back in here. (He pointed this out on the plan)
12666
Mr. Tent: Then that wasn't tied in with this addition.
Mr. Frantz: No. We would utilize this whether that was granted or not.
fir.. Mr. Tent: Are you the owners of the property or are you just a tenant?
Mr. Frantz: We are tenants.
Mr. Tent: So you have no control over the F & M operation that is next door?
Mr. Frantz: No.
Mr. Tent: I am sure you got a copy or saw the Inspection report about the
condition. How do you propose to handle those problems?
Mr. Frantz: What we did last year, at our own expense, we did do the whole roof
of the store and we did do the back of the property up to the F & M
store. As far as the F & M portion, I have no control over that.
Mr. Tent: There was an indication about the parking lot where it is going to
need some repair work.
Mr. Frantz: We did that.
Mr. Tent: I am concerned that you are going to have a nice operation but
directly next door it will look like a disaster area and I am
wondering how we can control that to make the entire shopping area
attractive.
Bob Backus: I can answer that. I am the District Manager. We have a
relationship with F & M so that we do communicate and we do have
some influence on how they care for their portion. I have talked
to the store manager at that location and I have talked to his
supervisors and received some positive results.
Mr. Tent: I would hope so because our Inspection Department has been there
quite a bit and they indicated in their letter that this has been
an ongoing problem.
Mr. Backus: Over the years I have worked personally with the folks from the
City to help keep it clean as best we can.
Mr. Tent: So you are addressing yourself to the condition there.
Mr. LaPine: The trucks you have there where you are doing your new addition,
after your renovations are done, they will be removed?
Mr. Backus: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: On the west side of the building where the fence is, where your new
addition is going, then you have some property that goes up to the
fence and there is some green area there where there is a tree
planted, there is a lot of debris in there that has been there for
a long time. Will you try to clean that up. There is no reason
12667
for that to be like that. I am curious about this canopy. Is that
going to be a flat canopy, a metal canopy, is it an awning type
canopy?
``, Mr. Frantz: It is a steel structure with a facade of standing seam, dark green
metal around it.
Mr. LaPine: You will not have any storage outside of that?
Mr. Frantz: No. We will have storage inside. It is our intent to take the
larger items that are there now and bring them back underneath the
canopy and put the greenery in the front.
Mr. Alanskas: On your new addition, will there be any lighting?
Mr. Frantz: The current parking lot lighting here (he pointed the area out)
will be removed because it is high in nature and the lighting would
be underneath the canopy.
Mr. Alanskas: All your summer plants will be inside?
Mr. Frantz: Yes.
Mr. Gniewek: How high is the fence?
Mr. Frantz: Eight feet.
Mr. Tent: Are you proposing any new signage?
`„ Mr. Frantz: No, the existing signage was put back on the building when we
renewed the facade.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to ask the District Manager, is this upgraded facility
and expansion a result of a fall off in business or is this just a
general upgrading?
Mr. Frantz: It certainly isn't a fall off in business. We are very successful
where we are at. I have been associated with that building for the
last 15 years and for a long time I have pushed for the renovation
of that building inside and out. We are finally getting new floors
and ceilings. It is a good job and the building deserves it.
Mr. Morrow: I am glad to hear that because we certainly like to see success and
your concern for upgrading the facade as well as expanding the
outdoor sales. Our interest is to bring along the overall site
plan to match what you are doing as far as the building and the
expansion is concerned, so we look forward to brightening up that
corner.
Mr. LaPine: To expand on what Mr. Morrow said, it is not really pertinent to
this case but I am just curious. As you know, across the street
there is going to be another similar use, Home Quarters. Do you
see that as any problem?
12668
Mr. Frantz: Certainly not.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that garden center gong to be fenced with the existing chain
link fence or will it be new chain link fence. Will there be any
decorative features?
Mr. Frantz: Basically the same material we have.
Mr. Engebretson: As you probably are aware of most of the similar operations
around town are starting to put some decorative features with some
brick columns and other types of fencing materials which certainly
are a lot more attractive than a chain link fence, but it is
certainly your prerogative to do that. I would ask that you not
re-install those barbed wire standards at the top of those poles.
Barbed wire is illegal in that area and those standards just give
the wrong idea.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-12-2-57 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
112-32-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Petition 92-12-2-57 by Handy Andy requesting waiver use
approval to expand the area utilized for outdoor sales of garden
supplies on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between
1-96 and Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1j4 of Section 26, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
v,,,. Petition 92-12-2-57 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 12-15-92 prepared by
Patrick D. Findlan & Asdsociates P.C. , Architects, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Canopy Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2 dated 12-15-92
prepared by Patrick D. Findlan & Associates P.C. , Architects, which
is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the expanded outdoor sales area shall be confined to the
specifically designated area on the site plan having a dimension of
40'x120' .
4) That the petitioner shall correct any site maintenance deficiencies
or other such problems as noted by the Inspection Department in
their letter dated February 1, 1993 prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and the site shall thereafter be
permanently maintained in good condition and to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Department.
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards as set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 11543.
12669
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the subject use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
/1543, as amended.
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 93-1-2-1
by Arsen K. Sanjian requesting waiver use approval to remodel and expand
an existing building for the purposes of operating an automotive service
center on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office would have no objections to the waiver use proposal.
We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office
stating their office has no objections to this proposal. A letter
in our file from the Traffic Bureau states they have no objections
to the site plans as submitted.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here.
Arsen Sanjian, 6610 Franklin Road, Bloomfield Hills: I did purchase this building
about six months ago and I did have some discussions with City Hall
prior to purchasing and I explained my intentions of buying the
building and performing an auto service as it was before, almost
the same use except selling new cars. Of course, it is a huge
building. It is four times as large as any Midas shop or Tuffy
shop. The facility as it is, with the expenses I have, it would be
very hard to survive with the expenses and the exposure I have at
the present time, so I would request from the Planning Commission
permission to expand and have an addition. (He presented his
plans) I do not have any exposure as it is now. I don't have the
privilege of dealership. In my case, I do think it is very
essential for my survival to have exposure for the public. I am
intending to have the most high tech service center for the public
and try to make a living but I think at the present time it would
be very hard without exposure. It would be a hardship. In the
meantime I requested five bays and I do have a showroom with an
office there. With your permission if I can have four more bays
there. I do request very highly these five bays here and if you
will grant me four more bays in the showroom area, I would really
appreciate that. I did go around and I know a new Speedy shop
opened up about a year or two ago with about 5 or 6 bays and it is
close to Plymouth Road and I think the car wash next to me they
12670
wanted exposure to the main street of Plymouth Road and he has a
permit to build two bays for a quick oil change. I hope you will
realize my hardship. One more point, I already spent almost
$200,000 on equipment and there will be more coming yet. Added to
what I already have in there, it will exceed $350,000. Of course,
I am willing to furnish all the receipts and invoices to make sure
all the figures are correct.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't think that is necessary but I appreciate your offer.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Sanjian, I see in my background notes that you want to
accommodate trucks up to a 20 foot box and two ton capacity. Is
that correct?
Mr. Sanjian: That is the most. The one-ton truck is very small. I request one
ton higher. It is a point of survival. Any facility for repair
does service up to one-ton with no objections. In my case, I have
to service up to two-ton at the most for my survival.
Mr. Morrow: I am not saying I don't appreciate where you are coming from and
your investment but as a member of the Planning Commission
addressing zoning issues and waiver use issues, I want to go right
to the heart of the question here to the staff. It appears we are
asking for a waiver use of something that exceeds the waiver in
that zoning. We are precluded from granting anything above a light
truck in a C-2 zoning. So the petition, as I see it, cannot be
approved under any circumstances and with that statement I will go
to the Planning professional staff to see if I am on the wrong wave
link.
Mr. Engebretson: I think you are on the right wave link Mr. Morrow and the issue
is there is nothing subjective about it. It is very clear. The
original submission that you made sir, I believe did fit within the
ordinance but these requested changes take it outside the
ordinance.
Mr. Sanjian: : As you know, that building was built for RV's a number of years ago
and RV's are quite large trucks. It is more than two-ton.
Mr. Engebretson: We can't get into that sir. We just have to deal with the
ordinance. We can't use that as a basis to grant an approval that
is in direct conflict with the ordinance. I think what we are
probably going to wind up doing, since you have changed this late
in the game, we will have two choices tonight. We can either deny
this proposal because of the comments you heard giving us no choice
or we can table it to try to work out some accommodations with you
to accommodate your needs and stay within the ordinance.
Mr. Sanjian: I would appreciate that.
Mr. Gniewek: Realizing that we do have a problem here is one of the things I
wanted to bring up too Mr. Chairman. I do note that one of the
deficiencies that we noted on the original site plan was with
landscaping. Has that been resolved John?
12671
Mr. Nagy: He did bring in the revised plans this evening and just reading the
notes the petitioner indicates they are now in compliance with the
15% landscaping. I haven't obviously checked it but it appears, if
his figures are correct, he has met the minimum standards.
Nftly
Mr. Tent: Mr. Sanjian, you are a business man correct? Do you have another
operation elsewhere?
Mr. Sanjian: Yes I do.
Mr. Tent: How come you purchased the property and you bought it without
making it subject to your getting the waiver?
Mr. Sanjian: We did have some preliminary discussions but not too much in
detail.
Mr. Tent: I can't be sympathetic with the fact you purchased the building and
now you want all this relief because you have a lot of money
invested in it. I know that is true but many times petitioners
come before us and it is subject to, so they have an option. I was
just curious. You probably got a very good buy.
Mr. Sanjian: We did discuss somewhat that I wanted to have a repair facility
there.
Mr. Tent: If you had to go ahead and downscale it because of the ordinance,
etc. , would you be willing to do that?
Mr. Sanjian: T am willing to work with you.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a question but I think we should just table this.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or
against this proposal?
Nick Zlonkevicz: I live directly behind the building. Going back about those
RV's. They weren't repaired. They were sold. It makes a big
difference. I hope you folks hold with the fact that there
shouldn't be school buses and RV's repaired there. My home is
about 40 yards away from that building. If they drop a hammer I
can hear it in my living room. I get the brunt of all the noise
pollution and air pollution. If there is going to be a lot of
painting, what happens to the air pollution? I am surprised you
people have approved that.
Mr. Engebretson: We haven't approved it.
Mr. Zlonkevicz: He has an investment in the building and I have an investment in my
home and I have been there over 20 years. When we first moved out
there Action/Nissan took over that building and we had a couple of
problems with them. They built the wall but it was too low. They
were supposed to plant trees but after 30 years the trees have died
and now we have nothing to provide for a screen. We think there
should be some type of screening program done so we could be
screened away from the building and the noise. I would like to see
12672
that place leased out as something else. It is close to a
residential neighborhood. I can't see a place like that being
leased out for heavy bumping and painting. The previous owner,
they just sold small cars but even so they had a second shift on
and when they opened those doors we couldn't hear our TV.
Mr. Engebretson: Your interests are a great concern to us and that is one of the
reasons the ordinance defines the limits as to what can be done in
this kind of a zoning district.
Mr. Morrow: I wanted to make a comment as regards to what we heard from the two
residents behind there. The Commission is certainly mindful of the
residential that backs up to the property and any time we look at a
waiver use which further intensifies the zoning that exist there,
we want to take that into account. We are certainly mindful. We
have some technicalities to overcome to see if we even have a valid
petition before us because it seems to exceed even what we can
grant them under a waiver use. I do know the City is looking at a
downtown development area along Plymouth Road. I don't know what
the size of that is but I do know, as one Commissioner, I am not in
a big hurry to do anything too dramatic along that road until we
find out what the City and the residents want to do along Plymouth
Road in this downtown development area and that will be one of the
concerns, if this is tabled tonight, to address. To reiterate, we
are mindful of where you are coming from.
Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say you have another operation? Where?
Mr. Sanjian: Its in Hazel Park at Eight Mile and I-275.
4r. Mr. LaPine: Is it as large a facility as this operation?
Mr. Sanjian: It is auto parts sales.
Mr. LaPine: You don't have any other facilities where you do repairs?
Mr. Sanjian: No.
Mr. LaPine: Is this strictly motor type of repairs or are you going to do
bumping and painting, etc.?
Mr. Sanjian: The facility was almost 100% body repair and sale of cars by Nissan
until 1992. We are going to have minor bumping and painting and
mostly repair and the addition we are requesting is on Plymouth
Road not in the back. In the meantime we don't have two shifts.
We will have much less service there timewise than it was a month
ago. We work less hours and no Sundays and no Saturday afternoons.
Mr. Engebretson: What are your hours of operation?
Mr. Sanjian: It will be from 7:30 in the morning until 7:00 at night but that
will be cut down to 6:00 p.m. On Saturday it will be until 2:00
p.m.
12673
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-1-2-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
'taw 1t2-33-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Petition 93-1-2-1 by Arsen K. Sanjian requesting waiver use
approval to remodel and expand an existing building for the purposes of
operating an automotive service center on property located on the south
side of Plymouth Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 93-1-2-1 until the study meeting of February
16, 1993.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Alanskas
NAYS: Morrow, Engebretson
ABSENT: McCann, Fandrei
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
93-1-2-2 by Shaw Construction & Management Co. requesting waiver use
approval for a real estate office to occupy a portion of a proposed
building located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six and Seven
Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
'401' existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office would have no objections to the waiver use proposal.
We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating
their department has no objections to the site plan as submitted.
Also in our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating
they have no objection to this proposal, however, an adequate water
supply line shall be provided to supply the required automatic
sprinkler system for the basement area. Lastly, we have received a
letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the
following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. As noted on the
plan, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be necessary
to waive the required protective wall on the south property line.
2. The proposed parking is adequate for general office use but may
become deficient if a significant portion of the building is used
as a medical or dental office. 3. A complete sign package should
be submitted for evaluation.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Dick Barker: I am with Shaw Construction, 13980 Farmington Road: This is a
multi-tenant building and it is proposed to be occupied by an
accounting firm, a medical office and the third occupant to fully
occupy the building will be a commercial real estate business,
�,,� specifically Ventura Properties. What else can I tell you?
12674
Mr. Gniewek: There was a building proposed previous to this building, which I
believe was by the same people with the same ideas as far as a real
estate office. Did we just run into some problems as far as
development time? Did you run out of time as far as your last
petition? Why are we doing this again?
Mr. Barker: Your recollection is correct. This building was approved with
waiver use almost exactly two years ago. At the time we had a
window of opportunity because of some leases and the building was
not fully occupied. There was a vacancy. After we achieved
approval, given the economic times, we thought it prudent to wait.
We have since obtained the final occupant so it will be a fully
occupied building now. We are ready to proceed. The building has
been slightly changed from the original design.
Mr. Morrow: As I recall when you came before us for a rezoning, you did share
with us that you had in mind a real estate company going in as one
of your tenants. Could you tell us the difference between a
commercial real estate company and a residential real estate
company so we get an idea of what the impact will be under this
waiver request.
Peter Ventura: I am going to be one of the occupants of this building and one of
the owners of this building. To address the question asked,
residential real estate today is evolving into a situation where an
office will contain somewhere between 40 and 60 sales associates
plus a support staff, plus customers. Commercial real estate is a
much smaller operation. My office right now contains 5 people.
This office will have the maximum capacity of 8 sales associates
and probably 10 to 12 people maximum. So size, number of people
`Now and amount of traffic are significant.
Mr. Morrow: I guess that was what I was trying to find out. You don't have a
lot of walk in trade per se? It is mostly outside promotion?
Mr. Ventura: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: One of the reasons we put the waiver in for real estate is because
It sometimes does far exceed the impact of a normal commercial
operation and I was trying to quantify commercial from residential.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Parker or Mr. Ventura, these tenants they are firm? Is that
correct? In other words, there is no speculation here?
Mr. Parker: In fact, they are all owners of the building.
Mr. Tent: if you are successful getting this all the way through, how soon do
you anticipate getting started?
Mr. Parker: Just as soon as approvals are granted. We expect the first tenant
will occupy the building on November 1st of this year.
Mr. Tent: Then it will be complete with all the landscaping and everything?
12675
Mr. Parker: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: The total square footage of the building is 16,500 square feet.
How many square feet will be for the real estate office, how many
`ow for the auditing office and how many for the doctor's office?
Mr. Barker: First let me point out that the gross square footage of the
building is correct in terms of the roof line. The inside of the
building is actually substantially smaller. There is an overhang
around the entire perimeter of the building of nominally three
feet so the interior square footage of the building is closer to
15,000 square feet. Out of the 15,000 square feet, the real estate
office would occupy 2500 and the other two tenants nominally 6000
square feet each.
Mr. LaPine: How many employees will the auditing firm have?
Mr. Barker: My recollection is 24 employees.
Mr. LaPine: What kind of a doctor's office are we going to have here?
Mr. Barker: They are two general practitioners.
Mr. LaPine: Do you know how much traffic they would generate?
Mr. Ventura: In deciding the parking for the building, which was one of the
reasons the building was downsized to provide more parking, the
average patient load on a daily basis is something like 20 patients
a day depending on who is in the building in terms of the doctors.
It could be less if only one doctor was there.
`..
Mr. LaPine: So you don't know at this point if both doctors will be there the
same day?
Mr. Ventura: There will be days when they are both there and there will be days
when only one will be there.
Mr. LaPine: The way I figured it out right now with just you two you need 36
parking spaces. The point is there is adequate parking. I just
want to make sure we are not going to skimp on parking. The other
question I have, the new site plan we have seen, in my opinion, it
doesn't have the character of the original site plan. Why was it
changed so drastically?
Mr. Barker: I think the only substantial change is the center atrium. The
center atrium has been revised. It is still an atrium and there
are still blocks on the roof. It had to be downsized primarily
because of the mix of the tenants and the fact that the medical
will no longer use the center atrium. We were just restricted by
space.
Mr. LaPine: Are you saying the doctor's offices will have a separate entry?
Mr. Barker: That is correct.
12676
Mr. Tent: Concerning the medical part as far as dumpsters are concerned. You
will probably have dumpsters on your facility to take care of the
trash.
`o.. Mr. Ventura: We are going to have a closed compactor on site. No dumpsters and
it will be locked at all times.
Mr. Tent: With doctors using instruments and needles they have to have their
own area for disposal and that will be taken into consideration at
this site?
Mr. Ventura: They actually have a pickup and their medical waste is stored
inside and they have a pickup. I believe it is on a hi-weekly
basis.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Ventura, when we looked at this two years ago it was my
impression that the building was a very impressive building and now
it just doesn't appear to have the same character and I am
wondering what your impression is, being a professional real estate
person.
Mr. Ventura: The significant difference in this elevation from the last one, is
twofold. One, this center area, which Dick just pointed out, is
going to contain a garden that is walled off. It is a little bit
narrower than the last one and the center area was a combination of
brick and glass block and is now all brick. We don't feel that it
is a lessening of quality of the building or it is any less
attractive. All of the other design features of this building have
been retained. These are relatively minor changes in the design of
the building to accommodate the different occupancy and to make
smaller the common area. The doctors are going to have lavatories
inside their suite so they will not be using the common area.
Mr. Engebretson: So it is your impression the character of the building is in the
same category as what you presented to us before?
Mr. Ventura: Absolutely. Being an occupant of the building and being in the
business I am concerned with that and I think our design retains as
much of the integrity and as much quality as it did before.
Mr. Tent: How about your signage. Are you proposing any type of signage?
Mr. Ventura: We have not done a sign design yet. The Ventura property suite
will be in this corner and we will be facing Newburgh Road. The
CPA firm will be facing Newburgh Road. We will probably come back
with a sign request that places a sign on the building here and
here. (He pointed this out on the plan)
Mr. Tent: You will try to comply with the ordinance?
Mr. Ventura: Absolutely.
Mr. LaPine: All your air conditioning and all those type things will be
covered so you won't be able to see them from Newburgh Road?
12677
Mr. Ventura: Yes I believe that is the case. We have a sophisticated and
unusual heating and air conditioning system in this building so we
are not going to have the typical big air conditioning units on the
roof that you find on the typical building.
Mr. Barker: There is one piece of equipment that goes on the roof it is a dry
cooler, which is similar to a enclosed big truck radiator. That is
the only piece of roof top equipment other than some exhaust fans.
Mr. LaPine: They will not be visible?
Mr. Barker: That is correct.
Mr. Gniewek: What is the color of the building?
Mr. Barker: It is a very light earth tone.
Mr. Alanskas: The auditing firm should have a lot of computers in there. Do you
have any plans for any satellite dishes at this time?
Mr. Barker: No there are no plans for any satellite dishes on that building at
this time.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-1-2-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-34-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Petition 93-1-2-2 by Shaw Construction & Management Co.
requesting waiver use approval for a real estate office to occupy a
portion of a proposed building located on the east side of Newburgh Road
between Six and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 93-1-2-2 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 8-1-92 prepared by
Kamp-DiComo Associates, P.C. , Architects, which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-9 dated 8-1-92
prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, P.C. , Architects, which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the Landscape Plan prepared by Mark J. Baldwin & Associates,
which includes the substitution of a greenbelt in lieu of a
protective wall as required by the Zoning Ordinance, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, and the landscape materials shall
be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
4) That the mechanical equipment on the roof will be shielded.
for the following reasons:
12678
1 ) That the subject 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 11543.
- 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
1/543, as amended.
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
93-1-2-3 by Frank & Tony Chimento requesting waiver use approval for an
SDM license at a proposed market to be located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 28.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have
no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from
`km" the Traffic Bureau stating the site plan does not comply with the
City ordinance; i.e. parking, lighting, etc. We have also received
a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the site plan as reviewed
does comply with the ordinance and that their department has no
objections to the plan as submitted.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. This site is approximately 130 feet from the Bonanza Wine Shop,
33614 Plymouth Road. Ordinance 543 Sec. 11.03(r) requires a
separation of at least 500 feet unless waived by the City Council.
2. A detailed sign package should be submitted for review. The
tenant would be permitted one wall sign, on the south elevation,
not to exceed 49 square feet in area. 3. The new sign ordinance
requires that the existing non-conforming pole sign be removed or
replaced with a conforming ground sign. The property owner has
filed an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, seeking to continue
the use of the non-conforming sign. 4. There is a proposal before
the Planning Commission to allow boat storage in a fenced-in area
at the rear of the building. Unless the gates of the storage area
remain open, delivery vehicles will be forced to back the length of
the building to use the delivery door. Closed gates will also
require that refuse and meat scrap be carried around the front of
the building to the dumpster enclosure at the northeast corner.
12679
5. This is a three tenant building. It is our understanding that
the storefront renovation is limited to this unit only.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step up and tell us what you are
proposing here.
Frank Chimento, 4936 Horger, Dearborn: I am requesting this variance on the SDM
license. I really would not interfere with the Bonanza. It is a
different style of store. It is an Italian market. I do not have
cold beer, pop and chips. I want the variance so I can have some
of my Italian wines. I just want a rounded Italian store and I
know we could both help each other out.
Mr. Engebretson: So there is no misunderstanding, we are really not dealing with a
variance here. We are dealing with a waiver use which permits the
use of an SDM license at that particular facility. The variance
that you will need will come from the City Council. They are the
only body that has the authority to grant that variance. We don't
have that authority. We are dealing with two issues here. One is
the waiver use to utilize the SDM license, and because there is
another facility within 500 feet, the City Council has to give
special variance to permit that.
Mr. Tent: Frank, I am familiar with your operation and you have a number of
letters here, one signed by Mayor Guido of Dearborn and one from
Edsel Ford of Ford Motor Company. So your type of operation, as
far as I am concerned, would be welcomed to the City of Livonia.
You have a great operation out in Dearborn. I believe it would be
an asset. I would have written a letter also stating how well you
run your operation. I have a couple of problems with this
— location. Did you sign the lease yet?
Mr. Chimento: No this is contingent.
Mr. Tent: Why did you pick that location?
Mr. Chimento: I like the area. I think it is a nice area. I think I could do
good there as far as business and for the City.
Mr. Tent:• In inspecting that site, you will have to have produce trucks, wine
trucks, etc. coming down the side aisleway to go ahead and get the
produce in the building. You are going to have some large trucks.
How will they manuever them with one side drive.
Mr. Chimento: The gates are closed now because there are boats there but part of
that back belongs to me where they can swing and come back out.
Mr. Tent: That is the question I would have. If you had some way of
servicing your facility from the back because as was stated here in
the letter from Inspection all your meat scrapings and things like
that can't be stored in the back and you would have to bring it
around to the front and put it in the dumpster. If you had a
facility at the back of the building, your customers would come up
to the front and the trucks can make a circle, I can't see a
problem but my understanding is that is all fenced in.
12680
David Miles: I am the managing partner of the partnership that owns this
building. My business address is 21650 W. Eleven Mile, Southfield.
To answer your question, there is a fence there now. The fence is
open during all normal business hours and has been open during all
'44m. normal business hours while the building has been up. The fence
was originally put up by Wonderland Marine when they had all those
boats stored on the property. The market will have access to the
rear of the building. There is a door on the rear side of the
building at the present time for access to the building. It is my
understanding Mr. Chimento is actually thinking of putting the door
at the rear but there is plenty of room for trucks. They have been
hauling boats in and out of that property for several years. In
fact, many years ago it was a lumber yard and they hauled lumber
back and forth down the side. There is plenty of room for access
for trucks.
Mr. Engebretson: We have a problem Mr. Miles. Several weeks ago the operator of
Pro-Motion Marine came here with a presentation seeking some
approvals that he needed to run his business and among other
things, he told us that the entire rear of that building, including
the space behind this building and behind that drive, was under
lease to him.
Mr. Miles: That is not correct. First of all, Pro-Motion Marine is on a
month-to-month basis. Number two, he does not have a lease at the
present time on the back of the property. He is presently using it
but he does not have a lease on the back part. In the event that
there were three separate tenants in the building, regardless
whether it was Pro-Motion Marine or another tenant, all the tenants
equally would have access to the back of the building.
Mr. Tent: I was happy to hear that because that nullifies item number 4 here
in the Inspection report. You are the owner of the building and we
are only talking here about renovating just the front of his
portion of the building. Is there any chance that you will go
ahead and fix up the whole front.
Mr. Miles: There is a possibility. Right now we are in the process of
negotiating a deal with the Chimentos based on their obtaining the
SDM license so they can run their operation. We are trying to
upgrade the property so there is a very good possibility of that.
Mr. Tent: John, on what the gentleman has stated here about the parking lot
and the back facility, would our drawing reflect this as part of
the approval resolution? If it did, then we have overcome the
problem that we thought we would have had.
Mr. Nagy: We did describe the full west end and the site drawing would
adequately accommodate it. Moreover, Pro-Motion, as you will
recall, withdrew their original petition and have to refile for a
new hearing for an expanded area so we still have time in the
future to deal with their petition to make whatever corrections we
need not to overlap the area Mr. Chimento now indicates that he has
the rights to. As of right now, we do not have an overlapping.
12681
Mr. Tent: So we don't have a problem with access to the back and that would
be available if this were approved?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I thought the Pro-Motion petition was tabled.
Mr. Nagy: We tabled it to allow him to re-advertise. We haven't
re-advertised that so we haven't had that meeting yet.
Mr. Engebretson: So you are assuming he is not planning to proceed or if he does,
then we still have the option of making sure we don't close this
area off.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Chimento you feel you have enough parking at that particular
facility noting you are at the end of the building and the majority
of the parking is adjacent to the Salvation Army? You have a few
spaces in the front. Will that accommodate you sir?
Mr. Chimento: Also there is parking in the back.
Mr. Gniewek: That is not designated as a parking area though. Would there still
be sufficient parking to operate there with just the limited number
of spaces that you have?
Mr. Chimento: Yes. I don't forsee a parking problem.
Mr. Engebretson: John, did you want to comment on the parking?
**441rMr. Nagy: I think there is enough room on the west end of the lot that
parking could be accommodated in that area if it were striped.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chimento, are you aware of the fact that at the present time we
have nine SDM licensed businesses within a one mile area. Do you
think you could be the tenth?
Mr. Chimento: My line of business is not just SDM.
Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of your sales are related to SDM?
Mr. Chimento: That I could not tell you to be exact. Most of my line is strictly
in the foods such as salami, cheeses, tomatoes, etc. The store I
have now I would say 15% is devoted to wine.
Mr. Alanskas: Could you do without the SDM?
Mr. Chimento: No, I would like to have it rounded off with that.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you be making sandwiches and things like that too?
Mr. Chimento: I really don't know.
Frank Capoccia: I own Bonanza Wine Shoppe next door. The only thing I would like
to point out, as somebody mentioned, there are nine SDM licenses.
There are four concentrated right on Plymouth and Farmington Road
12682
and T think that is adequate to take care of anybody's needs for
beer and wine. To the east of Farmington Road you still have
another three more between Farmington and Merriman. One recently
closed, the Wine Barrel, because there wasn't enough business to
slur accommodate them. If you go west on Farmington Road you have
another three up to Levan Road. I think the area is adequately
served. Actually Plymouth Road today is not the Plymouth Road it
was ten to fifteen years ago. The business isn't there any longer
because we service a lot of people that work in the area and
because the area is somewhat depressed, like Ford Motor Company,
although they build the same amount of transmissions today, they
build them with probably about 25% of the people they had ten years
ago so there isn't that many people in the area. The Chevrolet
plant is going to close and we service those people also. A lot of
the small shops haven't as many people around. There are really
less people on Plymouth Road today than 15 years ago. I think nine
SDM licenses on Plymouth Road is more than enough to take care of
anyone's needs.
Mr. Tent: Frank, in your beverages, is it beer, wine and liquor?
Mr. Capoccia: Right.
Mr. Tent: What percentage is wine?
Mr. Capoccia: Probably around 25% or 30%.
Mr. Tent: What they are proposing here, they are not going to sell beer.
Mr. Chimento: The reason we do not have beer, we do not want to take the cans in
,`"r such sad state as they sometimes come in. That is one reason why
we don't handle the beer, the pop.
Mr. Tent: So the only beverage you are going to be selling is the wine.
Mr. Chimento: Wine yes.
Mr. Tent: T want to assure this gentleman that as far as you are concerned
you are not going to be entrenching into his business by selling
beer and soft drinks and things of that nature. All you are going
to do is just dispense wine. That is why I was wondering what
percentage of his business is from wine.
Mr. Capoccia: There are not many more percentages that we can give up in our
business. I have been there for 30 years. For 20 years we had
steady growth. For the last 10 years we have been showing
decreases because of what is happening in the area. When you say
my business is only 25% wine, we can't afford to lose any part of
that and I don't think any of the other stores in the area can
do the same thing. By the same token if the people that are in the
area can't make enough profit to keep the places up, you are going
to have the orange buildings with the banners in the windows
advertising three quarts of beer for so much and we don't want that
to happen. I don't put any banners in my window. I am trying to
keep the place up. My place is probably one of the nicest places
on Plymouth Road and we want to keep it that way but we have to
have adequate sources of income.
12683
Mr. Tent: Are you familiar with his operation?
Mr. Capoccia: Yes.
. Mr. Tent: Where his sales come from are the people coming in there to buy the
Italian products. They aren't the type that would just come in for
the wine.
Mr. Capoccia: I wish I could be as optimistic about it as you can but you can't
put two places right next door to each other selling the same
products. Our business is beverages. His business is groceries.
What is happening here is he is proposing to come in and just sell
beverages in an area that is not within the ordinance. There was a
reason for this ordinance and I would say I don't think there is a
higher concentration of SDM licenses in the City of Livonia than
there is at Plymouth and Farmington Road. We don't need one 50
feet away.
Mr. Miles: I have been in Mr. Chimento's store. His store is an Italian
specialty store. Wine is a very small part of his business. As he
indicated to me most of his wine is in bigger jugs. I also happen
to be interested in wine myself. I collect wine. When I go to buy
wine I don't go to an Italian food store to buy wine. I go to a
party store, I go to a liquor store or I go to a wine store. I
think that the wine that Mr. Chimento is selling is an adjunct to
the food. People are coming as a one stop destination type sales
to his business to buy pastas and other specialty type foods they
have and while they are there, oh yes I'll buy some Italian wine.
I don't think he is going to get people coming to his store to buy
,` wine. I would also like to point out, from our standpoint,
speaking as far as the economy is concerned, this particular store
has been vacant for almost two years. We have had very little
prospects trying to lease it. I think this type of use could be a
plus to the community and a plus to us and we would beg of you to
look on this petition favorably.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 93-1-2-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Petition 93-1-2-3 by Frank & Tony Chimento requesting waiver
use approval for an SDM license at a proposed market to be located on
the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 93-1-2-3 be approved
subject to the waiving of the 500 foot separation requirement by
the City Council and to the following additional condition:
1) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet P-2 dated 1-11-93
prepared by Guido Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
for the following reasons:
12684
1) That the subject use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance as modified by the
City Council.
Ory 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
//543, as amended.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, if this thing is successful, we are going to have the
back end opened up and there will be no questions about it?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Alanskas
NAYS: LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson
ABSENT: McCann, Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
/12-35-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Petition 93-1-2-3 by Frank & Tony Chimento requesting waiver
use approval for an SDM license at a proposed market to be located on
the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 93-1-2-3 until the study meeting of
February 16, 1993.
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
92-11-3-4 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of a
utilities easement located on Lot 69, Gold Manor Estates Subdivision, on
the west side of Gill Road between Curtis and Seven Mile Road in the
North 1/2 of Section 9.
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 problems with this vacation. We have also received a
letter from the Consumers Power Company stating they have no
facilities in the subject area; therefore, they have no objections.
12685
Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner in this case, we will go to the
audience to see if there is anyone who wishes to speak for or
against this proposal to vacate.
'�. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 92-11-3-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
112-36-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Petition 92-11-3-4 by the City Planning Commission to vacate
a portion of a utilities easement located on Lot 69, Gold Manor Estates
Subdivision, on the west side of Gill Road between Curtis and Seven Mile
Road in the North 1/2 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 92-11-3-4 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject easement is no longer required to protect any
public or private utilities.
2) That the area covered by the subject easement can be more
advantageously utilized if no longer encumbered by the subject
easement.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code
of Ordinances.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary
Plat approval for Willow Creek Subdivision proposed to be located on
the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Munger Avenue
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating (1) the
street names should be consistent with others in the area to
facilitate emergency and delivery services. (2) Lot No. 14 should
not have access to Six Mile Road from the north side of the
property. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal
stating their department has no objections to this development.
Also in our file is a letter from the Superintendent of Parks and
Recreation stating he has found no problems or discrepancies that
will be caused by the development of this subdivision provided that
the wetlands that are noted on the plat are not disturbed in any
way. He states it is his further understanding that on lots 2 - 5,
including part of lot 24, that the proposed buildings on those lots
will not in any way disturb the noted regulated wetlands.
Furthermore, the developer should be reminded that the D.N.R.
recognizes that for any acre of wetlands that is disturbed, they
must replace it with two.
12686
Also in our file is a letter from Carole and Joe Mahalak of 30542
Greenland stating they have considered this proposal and question
the following: 1. Does the proposal meet all the current zoning
laws and flood plain rules? 2. Can homes be built on all the
Nor planned lots without requesting changes or deviations to the
current building laws/codes? 3. Are there plans for sidewalks? If
you answer "no" to any of these questions, we are opposed to the
proposal. Our lot joins the proposed plat on the south line.
We have also received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating the following comments are presented for our consideration.
1) It is strongly recommended that the road right-of-way be
increased to a 60' width. The additional width is recommended in
view of all of the various utilities that must be placed in the
public right-of-way (future lighting, gas mains, etc. ) including
sidewalks which could be within 3 1/2' of the proposed
back-of-curb. 2) In connection with Petition #92-3-1-6 for this
site, it was noted that there is an existing flood plain across
portions of the subject preliminary plat. Under the provisions of
Ordinance 543 it would be necessary for the owner to submit a
waiver use petition for purposes of considering the filling of the
flood plain as well as occupation of the designated flood plain
with homes. 3) Since D.N.R. regulated wet lands have been defined
within the limits of the plat, it will be necessary for the
developer to obtain a permit from the above agency to either fill,
relocate or by some other means, mitigate the wet land area. 4.) Is
consideration being given to connecting Munger Avenue at this
location to Munger which currently terminates at Henry Ruff? It
appears that in order to connect Munger from its present terminus
adjacent to the subject plat, it will be necessary to direct the
road northerly through Lot 4.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, the preliminary plat shows approved 50 foot wide streets.
That would indicate there would be no sidewalks. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: That is true.
Mr. Gniewek: If this were expanded to include sidewalks, would the lots then be
consistent with the RUFC zoning?
Mr. Nagy: If there is additional land taken from the lots to make the right-
of-way larger from 50 to 60 feet, then the lots would be deficient
of the 1/2 acre requirement.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward.
John Mahn, Southeastern Management Company on behalf of Livonia Builders: I would
he glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Tent: Will this be a duplication of Nottingham Woods? I am talking about
the type of buildings we have there.
Mr. Mahn: I know Livonia Builders has a good reputation in this City as far
as building homes and we have been trying to have the rural effect
with this 1/2 acre subdivision in regards to not having sidewalks.
Nottingham Woods, I believe, does not have sidewalks.
12687
Mr. Tent: Just a little history to those who wrote the letter. In the 60's
when Curtis Developers were in town, they were going to propose,
where Nottingham Woods is now, 393 homes on 40 foot lots because
they said Livonia couldn't sustain anything bigger than that
Now. because it was a small community. It took a couple of years to
convince them that they could come up with a 1/2 acre development,
which became Nottingham Woods. They went ahead there. I was on
the Planning Commission at that time and it was a struggle but we
convinced him to go to a 1/2 acre development. We eliminated the
sidewalks with no curbs or gutters and he was able to accomplish
his 1/2 acre development, and that was the beginning of Livonia
because from that time on we did have bigger lots. Up to this
point when they came in with an original proposal, they were much
smaller lots and it didn't go along with what I, as one
Commissioner, was looking at. I feel if they can build this on a
1/2 acre development, we can eliminate the sidewalks, we can
eliminate the 60 foot road, because in Nottingham Woods it is 50
foot. It is one of our nicest earlier subdivisions that we have in
this City. That is why I asked the question would this be that
type of development.
Mr. Mahn: Yes it would as far as the atmosphere.
Mr. Tent: I just thought I would mention that in passing. We did this in the
60's, came up with the 1/2 acre and that has been nothing else but
a successful subdivision.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Mahn, was there ever an attempt to perhaps increase the size of
the area for the subdivision to the east?
Mr. Mahn: Livonia Builders, whom I represent, tried to purchase 15 feet from
the east side property owner but they won't have anything to do
with that. As far as the west side, we also tried and the same
thing happened.
Mr. Morrow: So in a practical sense you tried to expand somewhat but met with
resistance?
Mr. Mahn: We spent quite a lot of time on that.
Mr. Gniewek: There will be three houses or will there be four facing Munger with
no access from Six Mile Road?
Mr. Mahn: There will be four hopefully.
Mr. Gniewek: Depending on the wetland situation?
Mr. Mahn: Yes.
Mr. Gniewek: There will be no access to Munger Avenue from Six Mile Road?
Mr. Mahn: No.
Mr. Gniewek: What are the sizes of the houses that are proposed for these lots
as far as square footage is concerned?
12688
Mr. Mahn: They will be ranging from 1700 to 2200 square feet.
Mr. Gniewek: What will be the approximate value of these homes?
'` Mr. Mahn: They will be ranging from $160,000 to $180,000.
Mr. LaPine: John, assuming we increase the road to 60 feet, what does that do
to the overall subdivision? Do they have to get any other
approvals?
Mr. Nagy: It will have to be redrawn because the lots will diminish in
number so therefore there will be new lot lines. There will be a
loss of one or more of those lots. The design will still
essentially be the same because you will still have the court and
still be connected to Munger Avenue. There will just be fewer lots
and therefore there will be a slightly different configuration but
the layout will essentially be the same.
Mr. LaPine: My feeling is it should be a 60 foot road with sidewalks. I don't
think I would vote for the proposal unless we got the 60 foot road
and the sidewalks.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, regarding that point, if the lots were reconfigured to
accommodate the 60 foot right-of-way and sidewalks, would it be
your guess that they would possibly lose one lot or would it be
more like two lots?
Mr. Nagy: I really don't know. I would be guessing but my feeling would be
at least two lots. It would be closer to two than one.
`r.
Mr. Engebretson: That would be the only way to be able to have both the 60 foot
right-of-way and sidewalks, would be to reconfigure because of the
minimum amount of depth that they have?
Mr. Nagy: That is right.
Mr. Alanskas: When you have a subdivision without sidewalks and if the homes are
going to be between $160,000 and $200,000, you can bet there are
going to be families with young children and if they don't have
sidewalks to play on, they could end up out in the street. I find
that to be a problem. I would like to see the 60 foot road with
sidewalks.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Mahn, with this development here, if you were successful in
getting it through, would you develop it or would it be sold?
Mr. Mahn: We would be building the homes also.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have anything to add Mr. Mahn.
Mr. Mahn: In regards to the no sidewalks versus sidewalks. These are 1/2
acre lots. I am a parent of children also and I live on a large
piece of ground and my children play in the back because I tell
them to play in the back. With 1/2 acre lots there is adequate
space there that I would pay taxes on that I would want my children
12689
to play there. Again, with no sidewalks it gives it a rural
effect. Like Mr. Tent mentioned, Nottingham Woods, they have
children there and .it is a 50 foot road and T don't believe the
children play in the street there. It is a matter of disciplining
your children. As far as making it a 60 foot right-of-way, we are
going to have a battle with DNR. What I mean by battle is we are
not sure there are going to be 24 lots. They are the biggest power
we have to face regarding these wetlands. What you see is
something we hope will be 24 lots but after DNR gets through with
it we might end up with far less than that so we are not sure of
that.
Mr. Morrow: As far as sidewalks I guess when the final plat comes in and you
begin to sell lots, the property owners would be aware whether
there will be sidewalks or not. It would be their decision to make
whether or not they are needed. If they feel they are needed, they
would probably seek lots elsewhere. My feeling is like Mr. Tent's,
T think the Nottingham Subdivision is a very nice subdivision and I
am not aware of any difficulties from their standpoint and that
subdivison has been around a long time.
Mr. Engebretson: If there are no other comments, I will go to the audience to see
if anyone wishes to speak for or against this proposed plat.
Joe Mahalak, 30542 Greenland: My wife Carole is in the audience. My property
shares a common north/south line with this property and I wrote the
letter that was read earlier. I am strongly opposed to this
because I think it is a very poor plan. It looks very much to me
like the flood plain down in the corner has been deleted
intentionally. I have a canoe in my backyard and I ride around in
that area and I have been on that lot with my canoe so I know it is
within the flood plain. I look at the 60 foot wide street with
much approval because I currently have a small footbridge across
the river and the number of children that walk across there is
quite high. Riley School is directly south of that and all the
children from that lot will be going to Riley. If you draw a
straight line from that subdivision to Riley School, it goes across
my lot. There are about 14 homes back there now and I haven't
taken a poll as to how many kids go across the footbridge, but it
is quite high. This will make it about three times that traffic.
Without sidewalks, I would think that would increase the tendency
for the kids to go across the property.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you please clarify which property is yours so I can
understand your comments better?
Mr. Mahalak: My property is on the southeast corner of the proposed property.
My lot is 100 foot wide and 1000 foot long and it goes all the way
across to Greenland. My home is on Greenland. About 700 feet of
my lot is below water level by about four feet in the flood stage.
I have a canoe and I ride around that area in the back and I have
been on the proposed lot and I would say 40% to 60% of that lot on
the lower right corner is underwater by four to five feet.
Mr. Morrow: We might point out that we have a more detailed map and it does
show a better shot of the wetlands.
12690
Mr. Mahalak: I am not too concerned about the wetlands. I am concerned about
the Planning Commission's tendency to approve this and then later
on they get approached with a number of deviations saying well I
bought the lot and the lot is too small and I want to fill it, I
,r want to make my home a little larger, I want to cut all the trees.
That has happened many times in our area.
Mr. Engebretson: Nothing has been approved sir and we really don't have the
authority. The DNR would be the only ones to have the authority to
deal with those wetland issues back there.
Mr. Mahalak: You do have the authority to say that lot on the corner is under
wetlands and therefore it should be a little larger to provide an
appropriate homesite.
Mr. Engebretson: The DNR makes those decisions as to what is a wetland. It is
possible if hypothetically this proposal was successful and if the
DNR tells them they can't build on that lot, that is the end of it.
Mr. Mahalak: In the past you have cut up many of the lots across from Greenland
and those lots were too small to build on but after the property
owner bought the property and comes here and asks for an appeal, it
is normally approved. If you look at the record it is normally
approved. If a lot owner comes to you and says I want to build a
house on a lot that is a little too small, you are setting the
stage with this on the right side of that road because there is no
room for sidewalks.
Mr. Engebretson: At the risk of sounding argumentative, which I don't want to do,
those kinds of issues that you are referring to where a substandard
lot winds up with a home being constructed on it, that is not this
body. That is the Zoning Board of Appeals. When you say you the
City, then you are right. Some of those things have happened but
that is not our doing.
Mr. Mahalek: All I ask is we have a good plan ahead of time so we avoid these
problems and we don't end up here arguing the case again.
John Bartus, 30069 Munger: I represent the North Livrance Estates Homeowners
Association, which is located just east of this area. The reason I
am up here is we are concerned about the wetlands and whether this
is a viable plan. The road, if you look at the detailed map that
you have in front of you, does violate some of those wetlands and
you have lots on the south side, which are basically more wetlands
than buildable property, so I too feel we will be back again
arguing over the same issues if you approve this plat.
Art Lewis, 30870 Greenland: My lot goes through to Munger. I guess I am not so
concerned about sidewalks because none of the adjacent area, all
those streets are homesteads without sidewalks too so it will fit
into the area. My only concern is have they figured out where they
are going to bring in all the utilities from because I have had
many problems with Edison in the past. My land is at the end of
the Edison line coming down the south side of Munger and from my
point on it is all swamp. It is under water and it is woods and
�► Edison has tried in the past to get a right-of-way through there
and I always block it. I was wondering if they had come up with a
plan.
12691
Mr. Nagy: Unlike your area, this is going to be a platted subdivision and all
utilities will be underground. It will come off Six Mile but they
will be buried within the platted area of the subdivision.
`.. John Hejka, 30885 Six Mile: I own the property due west on Six Mile Road. I own
the first and the landlocked part. We visited before when there
was the rezoning request so overall part of our reaction is we like
the approach of sticking within the RUFC of 1/2 acre lots. That
road through there, the concern that was raised last time was it
emptying out to Munger and I appreciate their recognizing let's not
send it out to Munger with this plan. They could have put that
road right next to my property and instead they put it on the
opposite side so I appreciate that part too. Some questions I
have, the gentleman mentioned without sidewalks the children will
be playing behind the houses so there are five to six properties
adjacent to mine so the concern I have is the privacy barrier or
the property line how that will be maintained, because at least the
first two houses off Six Mile that are adjacent to my driveway,
whoever designed them originally, the driveway is on my property
line so I have no privacy barrier. Whether it is additional trees
or bushes there to give some privacy between these properties for
if there are a lot of children or dogs, if I wanted to put up a
fence, it would be impossible for me to do so. My concern is how
would that privacy barrier be obtained between our properties and
the rezoned properties? Also, the question I have on the second
property off Six Mile, frequently through the year there is water
that floods out in that area and it might be because there is a
driveway that goes back. It doesn't have a natural relief. I
don't believe in the plan it is identified as wetland but it does
`r.. raise the question how those properties are designed and graded,
that the runoff could run down into my house. In addition to my
house there is a little guest house we have behind our property and
there is a garage down there and is it possible, depending on the
grading, that water could wind up flooding into my garage. It is a
question I have and as we go forward in planning we need to become
more aware of what is going to be the ramification of my property
with the flood waters. The other question is it sounds like we are
trying to keep the same wooded surroundings that are in the area
now. I would like to see that continue. The other question I have
that maybe you can explain is how this process continues going
forward through your body, the DNR, the City Council, etc. so I
understand that because I am interested in participating in this
process with Livonia Home Builders and the City to make sure it
would be consistent to keep everybody happy. Also, there were a
lot of reports here that were mentioned. Is there a way for me to
get copies of those?
Mr Engebretson: Sure. Come down to the Planning Department tomorrow and they will
be happy to give you that.
Mr. Morrow: I wanted to respond to this last gentleman. There is no requirment
for a privacy barrier between two residential properties. It could
be something the builder might want to erect or the property owner
might want to erect but where residential abuts residential, there
12692
is no requirement. Secondly, the runoff, things of that nature,
that all goes over to the Engineering. That is not part of this
body. That is their area of responsibility. As far as the lots
being buildable, that is the DNR responsibility. All we are trying
to do is see if the plat before us is workable, is it the proper
*ft' size to conform with the zoning. I can assure you the questions
you have will be addressed by some City body or some governmental
body. Those are questions we can't resolve here tonight. As far
as the process, we hold the only public hearing on a preliminary
plat. Council will see the plat and vote on it to finalize it.
You could be in contact with their office and they will apprise you
when they will be reviewing this plat as it goes forward from this
body. We will work with you any way we can.
Mr. Tent: You mentioned the fact about stripping the land of all the trees,
etc. We are concerned about that too and so are the developers.
We want them to retain all the mature trees that are in good
condition and plant others wherever possible.
Lee Davis, 30556 Greenland: Realistically we went through this rezoning more than
six months ago. Now we have something that has an RUFC zoning
requirement or attempts to fit that bill. I would like to see a
lower density housing but I know that realistically I don't own the
land so I have little control over what happens there and if they
meet the zoning that is fine but I would like to see the 60 foot
easement just to ease up a little bit on the density. Twenty-four
homes is a little dense in an area where if you look around there
you see very few homes in general. As where my lot sits, I am
hearing tonight there will be no fences. This will be an open
subdivision where one lot flows into the next like every place else
in the area. With my lot the way it is and the junior high being
down there on the corner, I am concerned every kid in that
neighborhood with 24 homes is going to be meandering right through
my backyard and that has me a little worried. The traffic in my
backyard is going to go up dramatically. We already mentioned that
there is a fair amount of people and hardly a day goes by that I
don't see somebody back there. If we could go with the sidewalks
and the 60 foot road, that would reduce from 24 to 21 or 22, I
would be all in favor of that.
John Monroe, 30900 Munger: Basically, the last gentleman said everything. We
extended Munger here a few years ago and at that time it had to be
60 feet. I don't know how we get 50 foot when at that time we had
to put in 60 and then a builder comes in and says I want to put in
a 50 foot road in. I paid for about 220 feet to put a 60 foot road
in. It meets basically RUFC. I would like to see less density.
Mr. Hejka: Just a clarification. As Mr. Morrow has mentioned since there are
no barrier issue on this, with living behind there, the sidewalks
then give you a relief on the front because then more children
would be playing on the front part of it so that is the counter
point if there is no protection on the back end, then there are
more inclined to like the idea of the 60 foot with sidewalks on the
front end.
12693
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Morrow indicated no barriers. What he indicated there was no
barrier required between properties. That does not say that the
homeowner that comes in that particular area doesn't want to put up
a fence at the back of his property. We don't have any idea what
the restrictions will be on this subdivision whether it will be
fence-free like several subdivisions are in the area or whether
people will want to come in and put a fence around their property.
We don't know that the four houses that are going to be facing
Munger may not put up fences at the back of their property so the
people from the section above it, the cul-de-sac area, don't walk
through their property. Because we say there is no barrier
restriction, what we are saying is that there is no requirement to
put up a fence. However that doesn't preclude the fact that the
homeowners when they once build a home there may want to put up a
privacy fence of their own across the back of their property. It
doesn't preclude you from wanting to put up a fence along your
property line if you want to keep the people from that new area
going across your property. There is no barrier required, however,
it doesn't mean one won't go up.
Mr. Mahalak: It is very difficult to sense the properties the children will be
going through. The adjacent properties have difficulties also. I
think the fencing issue will be up to the property owners. I don't
think the builder is going to put up fences. On the issue of
trees. I have seen quite a few lots that they have built on and
when they get done with all the utilities, the driveways, etc. the
trees that are there are all leveled and pushed out and they are
gone. I don't expect to see more than two to three trees in that
entire plot left.
`or.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Mahalak, that used to be the case before. Now they go through
and they mark the trees and if the developer knocks down mature
trees, they have to replace them. They don't come in with a
bulldozer. They work around them. So in this particular case if
this were to be successful and we would address Mr. Mahn and he
would preserve the trees that are there and he is not going to go
ahead and tear them all down. As long as I have been on this
Commission, we have addressed that situation. We just had a case
here recently where a developer went ahead and developed some land
and they went through with a chain saw and cut down all the trees
and they had to put them all back and they did and it cost them a
lot of money. I can assure you we are not going to do it that way.
Mr. Mahalak: I have a difficult time believing that because the person who
bought the lot across from my property had 14 oak trees on it that
were 14 foot in diameter and he came here and said he would
preserve them. He cut them all down.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Mahn, is it your intent to preserve as many trees as you can?
Mr. Mahn: First of all I am not building the homes. Livonia Builders is
building the homes. I am representing them and their record is
impeccable and they stand on their reputation. They have been
12694
involved in many, many subdivisions in Livonia and I would invite
them to go see those subdivisions because that is a good track
record. I believe you people know of their reputation and when
they say we are going to keep all the trees we can, that is what
they are going to do.
Mr. Morrow: I guess that is the answer I was looking for. You will try to
preserve as many trees as you can on the developed property.
Mr. Mahn: Yes and again, the DNR whatever is regulated there. We can't even
disturb that or the flood plain or anything else they were talking
about regarding the wetlands.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to dwell on this point Mr. Morrow but Mr. LaPine and
I were out there and spent a fair amount of time there on Saturday
and there are a lot of trees that aren't worth saving. I don't
think we should give the impression that we are going to save all
these trees because some of them are pretty scrubby trees and they
should come down and they will come down.
Mr. Morrow: I guess quality trees would be more appropriate.
Lidia Veri, 35189 Vargo: We are saving all the trees that we can save. If they
are not in the way of the road, the utilities, where we have to
build, we are not going to cut the trees. To cut trees cost money.
For the sidewalks I think they are going to see a real nice
subdivision and I don't think the sidewalks are necessary because
they are big lots.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, will you just briefly give us a reason for preliminary
plat and when the final plat would be approved and what would be
indicated when the final plat approval does come through. I think
there is some confusion here when we look at this preliminary plat.
People are automatically saying this is exactly the way it is going
to be. Would you tell us what the preliminary plat is for and how
it evolves into a final plat.
Mr. Nagy: The preliminary plat is the first phase of a two-phase process for
platting and developing property in the City of Livonia. The
reason it is called preliminary is just that. It is a preliminary
and not the final. It allows the subdivider to come forward with a
plan for the layout and configuration of the roads and the
properties and the lots consistent with City ordinances, the
various zoning classifications and the plat ordinance of the City
of Livonia. There is a hearing on the plat both with respect to
the Planning Commission's involvement, public utilities and City
departments. After that hearing the Planning Commission then makes
a recommendation to either approve it, to table it, to revise it
but ultimately they will report it out with a recommendation with
certain conditions and it will be forwarded on to the City Council.
The City Council will have the opportunity to similarly review the
record being established here tonight by the Planning Commission,
the reports that have been entered into the record, as well as
their own findings and Council will then be asked to concur
12695
in that recommendation. The Council can even take further action
and revise it. The Council is not necessarily bound to approve the
plan and the configuration presented but Council generally goes
along with the layout that the Planning Commission forwards on to
`. the City Council. After that layout is approved, then the
subdivider can rely on that to go forward with more detailed
engineering plans knowing that the road is generally acceptable,
that the lot lines are generally acceptable. They can go in and do
the detailed engineering to assure that all the needed public
improvements, the streets, the utilities, the elevations, the
grade, the drainage, is all going to be properly handled in
accordance with City requirements and City ordinances. Then that
plan is brought forward to the county and all the county reviewing
agencies, the City Water Board, the DNR, County Treasurer, etc. ,
all those agencies from the county standpoint will look at that
plat to make sure it is consistent with their areas of interest.
Once it has had the approval of all those agencies, then it is
brought back for final plat approval. It may be revised to some
extent. If there is major, major change brought about by that
review, then the final plat will go through a second hearing. If
it is basically in accordance with the preliminary plat, then there
will be a meeting on the final plat and there will also be approval
by the Planning Commission and also the City Council. So this is
the first step of at least a two-step process.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for Willow Creek
Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Preliminary Plat approval for Willow Creek Subdivision
proposed to be located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Munger Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
the Preliminary Plat for Willow Creek Subdivision be approved subject to
the submittal of a landscape plan for the required greenbelt easement
over the north 30 feet of lot 14 and a plan for a subdivision entrance
marker to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to the approval
of a Final Plat for the following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat is in compliance with all of the
standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
2) That no City Department has objected to the approval of the
Preliminary Plat.
3) That the design of the Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the development of the subject land.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have
been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
12696
Mr. LaPine: I just want to get this straight in my mind. I am opposed to it
because I want a 60 foot right-of-way and the sidewalks but if I
vote for the preliminary plat because I have no objection to the
subdivision, before this goes to Council we will have another crack
`, at this? Lidia Veri is probably the best builder of homes in the
area. I have no objection to the builder. I have no objection to
anything but my gut feeling that I feel that should be there. The
layout is fine.
Mr. Engebretson: As you heard in Mr. Nagy's summation if this is approved by the
Planning Commission and the Council, it triggers a whole series of
events that the developer is relying on.
Mr. LaPine: Then I have to vote against it tonight if I want the 60 foot road?
Mr. Engebretson: I think so. I want to also speak in opposition to the proposal.
I think that this layout is indeed fine but that it complies only
because of the 50 foot right-of-way and the omission of the
sidewalks and as a parent and grandparent I think those sidewalks
are important. This notion of a rural effect with that many houses
clustered together in that small of an area is not reality. If we
wanted a rural effect we would have far fewer lots, we would
eliminate the streets, we would have dirt roads. I think the point
is that these sidewalks will in fact move some of the activity away
from the abutting neighbors that have been there for some time and
most importantly, it would provide a safer place for people to walk
and children to play. I have sidewalks in my subdivision, which is
approximately 20 years old, and even though we have sidewalks a kid
will wind up occasionally in the street but the vast majority of
the children confine their play to the sidewalks. I know the
argument can be made they play in the driveway ramps but they are
just going to wind up in the street. The children will be walking
to school and where will they have to walk? In the street. It is
not right. I would never support any proposal that requires
children to traverse a street to get from their house to a
playmate's house or school.
Mr. Tent: T am going to speak for it. There are 93 homes in Nottingham
Woods. There are children in there and it has been there since the
middle 60's. It is a very successful subdivision. They have had
no sidewalks there. They have had a 50 foot street. There has
been no problems there. I am sure those people have children. The
yards are big. I live in an area too where we have bigger lots.
We have no sidewalks. There are places for sidewalks and there are
places for no sidewalks. In this case, if we expect to go forward
here within the City and utilize a 1/2 acre development, we have to
use common sense. I can see Castle Gardens where they have small
yards. You have to have sidewalks over there for the children to
play on. These are big size lots. Nottingham Woods has 93 homes
in it without sidewalks so I can't see any catastrophe here. I
can't see any problems. If there were, they would have been
brought forth 25 years ago with the other one. Burton Hollow,
those are smaller lots there and they have sidewalks. So the
argument there that the kids need some place to ride their
12697
bicycles. Yes on small lots but not on 1/2 acre developments. I
think we are only talking a few owners out of 27 in a nestled area
there. We were real successful with Nottingham Woods. I would
hang my hat on that and I would urge we support this. When it gets
to Council I certainly hope they see it our way too.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Morrow
NAYS: LaPine, Alanskas, Engebretson
ABSENT: Fandrei, McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#2-37-93 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
9, 1993 on Preliminary Plat approval for Willow Creek Subdivision
proposed to be located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Munger Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, the
City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the Preliminary
Plat Approval for Willow Creek Subdivision until the Regular Meeting of
February 23, 1993.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent,
ABSENT: Fandrei, McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat
Approval for Stonehouse Estates Subdivision to be located on the north
side of Joy Road between Newburgh Road and Hix Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 31.
Mr. Engebretson: Anything to report Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: We do have a letter from the Engineering Department recommending
approval of the Final Plat and I explained at the study meeting the
fact that the bond is being reduced tomorrow at the Council regular
meeting, at which time the balance of the money will be posted so
we won't release the resolution until we have satisfactory
assurance from the City Clerk that the financial obligations have
been met.
Andy Lendrum, 19182 August Ct. : I am going to be posting my cash bond real soon.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there any further discussion needed on this. I think we have
exhausted the discussions at previous meetings. This is kind of a
`'� formality at this point.
12698
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
it was
##2-38-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
,01111. Final Plat for Stonehouse Estates Subdivision to be located on the north
side of Joy Road between Newburgh Road and Hix Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 31 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat is drawn in compliance with the Preliminary
Plat.
2) That the Engineering Department has indicated by letter that they
have no objection of the approval of the Final Plat.
3) That a letter from the City Clerk indicates that all financial
obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been taken
care of.
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 approval of the
minutes of the 656th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on January
12, 1993.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
i#2-39-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 656th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on January 12, 1993 are
'�.. hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Alanskas
ABSENT: Fandrei, McCann
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 657th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on
January 26, 1993.
On a motion duly made by LaPine, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved,
it was
112-40-93 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 657th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings of the City Planning Commission held on January 26, 1993 are
hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
12699
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by LPR Associates, on behalf of Westside Deli, requesting
approval for one ground sign on property located at 17199 Laurel Park
Drive North in Section 7.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-41-93 RESOLVED that, Sign Permit Application by LPR Associates, on behalf of
Westside Deli, requesting approval for one ground sign on property
located at 17199 Laurel Park Drive North in Section 7 he taken from the
table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: We requested the petitioner to tend to some detail being added to
his sign proposal. I presume Mr. Lambert that you have done that.
Mr. Lambert: I am appearing for LPR Associates. What we have done is we have
increased the dominance of the Powerscourt name, which is the name
of the office building, and the address and we have reduced
significantly the scale of the interior occupant, Westside Deli.
The background will be significantly muted and more in line with
the tile support columns on both sides of the sign.
Mr. LaPine: I have always supported your proposal but I had never seen the
restaurant. I happened to be able to look at the restaurant
Saturday and quite frankly my conception of what I thought this
was, I have an altogether different view of it now. Basically it
is one step up from a snack shop. It is a small area. It is not
very big. I was very disappointed. I was looking for a big
restaurant. This is not a big restaurant. It is just a small
snack shop. I feel I can't go for another sign at that location on
that type of an operation. That is just the way I feel. If I
hadn't seen it, I probably would have voted for it. I don't think
that type of operation warrants a sign.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Lambert, that is my fault because I took him there. I want
to say at the outset, in previous meetings you have claimed to have
one of the more elegant buildings in the City and I want to tell
you I think you have the most elegant building. The interior is
really first class. It is the first time I have been in that
building and it is one you can be very, very proud of. As a matter
of fact, I went there one day to have lunch with some friends and I
have to tell you I was horrified when I walked down those stairs,
and it really looked nice when we walked down those stairs, but
when we got there, as Mr. LaPine said it is really just one click
up from a vending machine operation. That is the bad news. Let me
ask you is that the way it is going to stay? It appears there is
room in there to sell freshly made sandwiches and salads and things
like that and you have a magnificent seating area. It is really
quite a beautiful area in keeping with your building but in its
current form it seems to me to hardly justify you advertising the
presence of that kind of operation because frankly we walked out
12700
and I think most people would if that is the way it stays. On the
other hand, I think you need that sign with or without the Westside
Deli. I have supported your sign from the beginning too and I
still do but I want you to know I am not motivated by the Westside
`\r Deli issue here. I am motivated more by what I perceive to be the
needs of your building for identification and a convenient location
that will enable people to conveniently find your building and get
situated without any aggravation. Having said all that, I am
wondering what you may understand Westside Deli's future plans to
be.
Mr. Lambert: You have touched on it a little bit. There is a deli in there and
it has the capability to serve freshly prepared sandwiches prepared
outside. That has not been done yet because of the traffic. You
can't turn over the food if you can't have a showcase. The
showcase and everything is in there. There are some other things
that are going to go on. Not all the wall decorations are in yet.
We have come a long way but we are not completed yet. The traffic
volume in there right now obviously is very low for a couple of
reasons. It was just recently opened. It is the time of year and
you are not going to attract a lot of the public coming into that
office building just because of the time of the year. Within
probably the next 60 to 90 days we will be in that phase of the
operation which will be totally open. In terms of the type of the
operation, on a scaled down basis, we had more in mind of an
operation similar to Alvin's Restaurant in Birmingham. We wouldn't
be getting into meals because it is an office building. Meals kind
of get into the evening hours. We are contemplating different
types of hot items as well as freshly prepared sandwiches and
sandwiches to go that will be prepared on order.
Mr. Engebretson: I think that would give you a much better chance for attracting
business in and keeping it. In its current form you may attract
people in but I am representative of a typical business person
accustomed to eating restaurant meals every day at lunch time and
the idea of taking a sandwich out of a tray and sticking it into a
microwave is not my idea of a good corn beef sandwich. I don't say
that to be argumentative with you or to put down what is there. I
think realistically this will be very hard to attract and build a
business there based on the current type of operation. They need
to either open it up and go for it or reduce it to what it is and
serve just the tenants of the building. I will say the day I was
there about 12:15 it was quite busy so that was gratifying to see.
Mr. Lambert: That does not make a restaurant. You have to have it all day long
and you have to build your trade but you can't build your trade
unless you have a sign.
Mr. Engebretson: The real dilemma is how can you build a trade if you don't
provide a service. We didn't stay.
Mr. Tent: I had no trouble finding the place. I went right up to it and I
saw the Powerscourt and the building is attractive so I really had
no problem so to flood the area with all kinds of signs, I think
that is wrong for that beautiful location. Going along with the
12701
restaurant concept, I too agree with what my fellow Commissioners
had to say. If you really intended to have that type of operation,
you are telling us what you would like to do but you haven't done
it and what your intentions are and they are still not there so I
Slow would say you are really premature with what you are proposing.
You want a sign for a sandwich shop and you want to destroy what I
feel is a good positive type location. I couldn't support this
because it is not what I had anticipated or expected. If you
intend to have a full pledged restaurant in there, go ahead and get
those things going and then come back at another date to go ahead
and show what your intentions are. I say get everything together
and then come back.
Mr. Lambert: T would like to comment Mr. Tent. What comes first? The first
thing that comes is the investment, putting a restaurant together
and putting the equipment in. The equipment is all there. Now do
we staff that place with two to three people in there, put the food
in there and not get the turnover and let it go to waste and absorb
huge operating losses so we can impress this Commission?
Mr. Tent: A lot of developers come in with good plans. They don't say I am
going to give you half a plan and when I am successful, I will give
you the rest of it. They had faith in what they were doing and
they made an investment.
Mr. Lambert: The investment has been made.
Mr. Tent: The restaurant doesn't show it and we are going to go and
jeopardize our landscaping over there by advertising a diner in
that high-price location.
Mr. Lambert: I am just trying to say the investment has been made in the
restaurant. It has the capability there to provide all of the
services of a true deli.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you for all of your cooperation. You have done everything
we asked you to do and you certainly do have a beautiful building.
I hope you are very successful with that venture there.
Mr. Lambert: I appreciate your comments but I think the big thing is in order to
have a successful office building, one of the amenities we have to
provide is we have to provide a full service restaurant somewhere
within the facility. If we don't do that, it will severely
jeopardize ourself to attract topnotch tenants. They will move
into the larger office buildings that provide that type of service.
What we have tried to do is provide a class operation over there
and made the investment and this is one of the things we have to
put within the building and we are trying to get the signs
necessary to make it successful financially.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Lambert, you said that this Westside Deli operates a
successful operation in Novi?
Mr. Lambert: At Eight Mile and Haggerty.
1.2702
Mr. Engebretson: What kind of an operation is that? Have you been there? Is it
what you would envision having eventually?
Mr. Lambert: Even expanded more than that because they have no carry-out or
'40,11, ability to sell over the counter fresh meats.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
112-42-93 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by LPR Associates, on behalf
of Westside Deli, requesting approval for one ground sign on property
located at 17199 Laurel Park Drive North in Section 7 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That this applicant has failed to comply with Section 18.50G of Zoning
Ordinance 11543.
2) That the proposed sign, along with the existing signage on this
property, is over the amount of sign area that is permitted by Zoning
Ordinance 11543;
3) That the applicant has failed to justify the need for the excessive
amount signage at this location over what is permitted by the
ordinance;
4) That the approval of this tenant sign would be a disservice to other
tenants in this office building, as well as in the surrounding
buildings, who have similar situations.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow
NAYS: Alanskas, Engebretson
ABSENT: McCann, Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 658th Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on February 9, 1993 was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/ /
,e , . .
Raymd W. Tent, Acting Secretary
rOL
ATTEST: (; VMe so/.
( 1
Tack Engebrn, Chairman
.4` jg