HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-12-11 11417
MINUTES OF THE 614th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 11, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 614th 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 50 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Conrad Gniewek
R. Lee Morrow* James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, 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 vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become
effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission
'torr has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff
with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use
them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: Before we get into tonight's first item I would like to announce
that the fifth item, a rezoning request by John DelSignore
involving property alongside the Laurel Manor is being considered
for rezoning but as a result of a review that we did and a request
that we made on him to make some minor changes in the character of
the rezoning issues, is being withdrawn and will be refiled and
this item will be re-advertised and notice will be given of the new
hearing, which will probably happen sometime in January. If you
are here tonight on that item, this just happened and there was no
time to let you know. We just want to let you know now.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
90-11-1-28 by Royal Management for Jose L. & Stella Evangelista
requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington
Road between Plymouth Road and Orangelawn in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 33 from RUF to R-9.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
11418
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
should the rezoning/site plan for the subject petition be approved,
the following observations are made relative to the development of
the site: 1. Farmington Road has not been dedicated to its fullest
extent (60 feet) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare
411,1,. Plan. 2. It can be expected that the Wayne County Office of Public
Services will require appropriate passing lanes, deceleration
lanes, etc. along Farmington Road. 3. There is an existing 30 foot
wide permanent easement for storm sewer (Farmington Road storm
relief sewer) which traverses the approximate mid-point of the
site. No permanent structures may be placed within this easement
area. We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating
they have no objection to this petition but they do maintain
overhead lines on this property that would conflict with any
construction. They want us to inform the developer that they will
need a site plan as soon as possible because they will need eight
to ten weeks to relocate their equipment.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner with us tonight?
Richard Gallagher, 29992 Munger: The owners of this property would like to build
five little buildings with four units in each building with 640
square feet in each unit, strictly for senior citizens. We realize
what the City has talked to us about the utilities and the widening
of the road and whatever. The owners are willing to go ahead with
anything that would work to move things along. We developed one
site plan that I don't think anybody has seen yet but I think it is
a decent layout for these units and there is definitely a need for
senior citizen housing in Livonia. The buildings are all brick all
the way around with bay windows in the front. There would be
lighting, underground facilities throughout and any adjustments
that we have to make to accommodate the sewer that we are aware of
that runs through the property shouldn't hinder our construction.
We are planning to leave all the trees that we can on the back part
of the site. The site at one time had an old house on it that was
torn down. It was vacant for sometime. I asked the owner to leave
the rest of the site treed so we can pick what trees can stay and
what trees have to be moved. We plan a little park in the very
back of the unit for the people to use.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Gallagher, you just mentioned a park. Would that be in the
back of each unit or in the back of the complex?
Mr. Gallagher: On the end of the property. The property is 600 feet deep. On the
west end of the property. It is treed back there right now and we
just want to put a little turnaround at the end and have a few park
benches and maybe some barbecue pits.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Gallagher, you indicated that these would be five little brick
buildings. Is that correct?
Mr. Gallagher: Five little brick buildings with 640 square feet for each unit.
Mr. Tent: I would assume now that they would all be one-bedroom units. Is
that correct?
11419
Mr. Gallagher: Yes.
Mr. Tent: Did you indicate something about basements?
Mr. Gallagher: No basements.
Mr. Tent: Are you going to provide any type of recreational facilities out
there? Any meeting buildings?
Mr. Gallagher: The only recreational thing would be a little seating area under
the trees at the back of the site. The site is too small for
anything bigger.
Mr. Tent: What I was referring to in quite a few of the areas they have a
separate building set aside where you can go and play a little
bingo.
Mr. Gallagher: We haven't really gotten that far yet. We don't know how we are
going to make out here yet. We had one other unit drawn up earlier
for just this purpose sitting in the back but we decided it would
probably be just as easy to put a park type of affect on the far
west end of the site.
Mr. Tent: I assume that you are the architect.
Mr. Gallagher: Yes, we are designing it.
Mr. Tent: Are you using every bit of that land?
Mr. Gallagher: No. We could put another one or two more buildings in there but we
are not going to. We just want five buildings. I do have a plan
if anybody wants to take a look at it.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Gallagher, I think unless there is some significant point to
be made relative to the site plan that we really should confine the
discussion tonight to the zoning issue other than looking at the
site to try to make some determination as to how suitable the
zoning is.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Gallagher, there are two vacant lots to the north of you. Have
you tried at all to communicate with the owners to see if they
would want to go in with you and sell you this land so we could get
the whole parcel developed?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes I have. He wasn't too interested in selling. What he would
like to do is take the back end of this property and leave it the
way it is and retire from his attorney business and start a nursery
back there growing trees and in time, when they get big enough,
sell them off. It is a hobby for him. We offered to buy the land
from him but he doesn't want to sell it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Could he do that in that area?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, RUF zoning classification permits the growing of nursery
stock.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You say five cluster units, four units in each building. Would
they have garages?
11420
Mr. Gallagher: No, carports on the other side.
Mr. Vyhnalek: They are not all in a row are they?
Mr. Gallagher: No.
Mr. LaPine: Is this going to be a privately funded operation?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes it is.
Mr. LaPine: No federal funding?
Mr. Gallagher: No sir.
Mr. LaPine: What price range are we talking?
Mr. Gallagher: Around $450 a month. This would include a washer, dryer,
dishwasher, stove and refrigerator. A completely ready to move
into unit.
John Colucci: I own the property to the north, the law office. I am the attorney
that is going to retire and raise shrubs. If you put great stock
in that, I would like to straighten it out. Number one, Dr.
Evangelista, before the old house was torn down, which happened
after several complaints from me stating that the house that was on
the subject parcel was a nuisance and attracted children and young
teenagers who were smoking and drinking and whatever and I was
getting complaints from my tenants. Finally, the City got on him
and he decided to tear it down and clear out the shrubs. Prior to
that time he came to me and said let's make a deal and I said fine
;` I am listening. He said I will buy your two houses, that is the
two parcels on the north side that comprise three acres. He said I
will give you $75,000 apiece because that is what they are
appraised at for tax purposes or he said you can buy my property.
I said fine. What do you want for yours. He said $120,000. I
said well there is somewhat of a disparity there. I don't quite
understand the equities, explain them. He said well if I sold you
my property, you would have five acres and each acre would be worth
$60,000 and that is how I come up with the $120,000 but if I buy
yours, you have two houses and I will have to tear them down so I
can only give you $150,000 and with that the negotiations faded.
Now what is my concern is the senior citizen housing. First off we
hear there has to be a deceleration lane. The property is very
narrow. It is 130 feet, 627 feet long and about 30 of those front
feet will be taken by the County or the City in the expansion of
Farmington Road.
Even though the Doctor represents that this project will be
privately funded, I have discovered that the rents will be
subsidized; therefore, we do have government interaction in this
particular area.
A second proposal was made to me that I join in the project, agree
11421
with the rezoning and then develop the three acres I have into the
same kind of housing. That bothers me because there are a lot of
people in the area that I represent. I am not exactly sure. I am
trying to keep an open mind. I haven't decided one way or another.
I have to think not only what will benefit me but what will benefit
my neighbors. I am not convinced that privately funded development
of this type, that calls for subsidized rent, is in the best
interest of this particular area.
The other thing that one must relate to in this kind of a project,
we have rents in the $450 class and the key is maintenance. If you
rent these units to the elderly, the matter of cutting the grass
and cleaning the lawns and sweeping the sidewalks and removing the
snow is all on the landlord. It is absolutely essential that the
maintenance be first rate because if it isn't, you suddenly are
faced with five single purpose buildings, one bedroom units with
640 square feet.
I think that I would like to know more about this. I would like to
know what the Doctor proposes, first off, by way of subsidy. Are
these people paying the rent out of their own income or are we
going into government intervention either through the Department of
Social Services or through HUD, where the rents are subsidized, and
that leads to a whole new set of federal regulations. These things
have not been made clear to me. I did see a sketch of the way
these buildings would be laid out but beyond that I really don't
know anything more and I would reserve judgment until I get all of
the facts, particularly as to how the rents are going to be paid,
who is going to pay them, and what are the standards of management.
On that basis I would ask the Planning Commission to table the item
until further information is provided, not just to me but to the
people around me. I received a number of calls from people in the
neighborhood and they are concerned. The type of housing in the
neighborhood varies from deluxe to modest but whether it is deluxe
or whether it is modest, those people have a stake in the community
and they are concerned and I also speak on their behalf.
Mr. LaPine: I have no problem with senior citizens in that area but I do have a
problem with the other property. Do you think there is any
possibility in the future, maybe six months or a year from now,
that the two of you can get together so the property could be
developed as one unit? I think if it was developed as one -unit we
could get a better design, a better type of senior citizens housing
other than what he is proposing. Do you think there is any
possibility that could happen?
Mr. Colucci: I think it is a very good possibility provided we would have a
third party who would act as arbitrator and set the values. I am
amendable to that kind of a meeting. I am not amendable to an
offer that says I will give you $150,000 but I will take $120,000.
When the values are widely different, the great disparity makes it
almost impossible to negotiate a reasonable accord and agree. I
have a law office next door and I expect to be there a long time
and before I develop that property, I will raise shrubs because
that happens to be my hobby. I have a farm and the only reason I
r..
11422
would raise shrubs there is because I can quit at two o'clock and
get into my coveralls and go in the back and do some work rather
than drive to my 40 acre farm. However, what is in the best
interest of the neighborhood? What is in the interest of that
particular street? I think spot zoning with kind of a helter
skelter development is in nobody's best interest and if they want
to negotiate for the whole five acre parcel, I will throw in my
three acres but I won't be shortchanged in the process.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Colucci, then actually regarding the zoning, you have no
problem with the R-9 zoning providing they would put in a quality
development. Is that correct? In other words the zoning issue
here is the R-9 and if the buildings that would go in there would
be of a quality nature, you have no objections to that type of
zoning?
Mr. Colucci: Not really. We do need senior citizen housing. There is no
question about it. Behind my office is the American House. It is
well landscaped. It is very quiet. I have walked through the
premises myself. I have gone in and I have talked to the residents
there. They seem to be quite happy. However this is a different
kind of a concept altogether. They only have one room but included
in the rent is the laundry and the food service and that runs in
excess of $1400 a month so when you tell me you are going to get
$450 a month rent, it is hard for me to come up with a yield that
is consistent with the investment. It seems to me that the
difference is made up through a subsidy and if we are going to have
subsidized housing, I think that is a different ballgame.
Mr. Tent: The points you have brought up are very valid and those should be
sow taken into consideration.
Mr. Engebretson: I think that while we don't want to make this the single issue
here tonight, you have raised some very interesting points Mr.
Colucci and I think it would only be fair before we let others in
the audience to go on before we get too far removed from this, to
allow Mr. Gallagher to respond, if he wishes, to some of these
points and then we will go to the audience.
Mr. Gallagher: I think some of his points are valid and they need some talking
about so if this does get tabled to a later date, that is fine.
That would give Evangelistas time to get back. They are out of
town now and they won't be back until the 19th of December. After
that we can sit down and I can work as an arbitrator between the
two of them and maybe we can pull something together. I would be
all for it.
Mr. McCann: I would ask for a tabling resolution until the study meeting of
January 15, 1991.
Mr. Engebretson: I presume it would be your intent Mr. McCann for the petitioner
and Mr. Colucci to seek some dialogue on the petition to see if
they can come to terms before that meeting?
Mr. McCann: Correct.
11423
Mr. Engebretson: I would ask that while the City isn't in the business of
arbitrating issues like this and I am sure you are all aware of
that, perhaps it doesn't have to be a formal arbitration but it
would surely be in everyone's interst to get this worked out in an
amendable way.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-11-1-28 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-501-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
11, 1990 on Petition 90-11-1-28 by Royal Management for Jose L. & Stella
Evangelista requesting to rezone property located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Orangelawn in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-9, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 90-11-1-28 until the study meeting of
January 15, 1991.
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.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-11-1-29 by Carolyn Fullwood requesting to rezone property located on
the northwest corner of Middlebelt and Munger in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 14 from OS to C-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have
also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to this petition, however, they do maintain overhead
lines on this property that would conflict with any construction
and therefore would need a site plan as soon as possible because
they would need eight to ten weeks to relocate their equipment.
Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come down to the podium and tell us
why you are making this request.
Ms. Evans, 8553 Huntington Blvd. , Canton: I am speaking on behalf of my mother,
Carolyn Fullwood, who is in the hospital. She has had this house
for sale for quite some time. She had it listed before. The
listing ran out. She relisted it and we have someone interested in
buying it who would like it for retail.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have any more specific information? Do you know what type
of business?
11424
Ms. Evans: We have had offers on the house, people aren't interested in buying
it for their home considering there are businesses on one side and
stores and a dry cleaners on the other. There is a closed school
behind us that is now MEA. There wouldn't be much more traffic.
We get a lot of traffic from the MEA building. We have traffic
\. from businesses on both sides of us. There is quite a bit of
activity around us. It is quite a big piece of land.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't want you to feel that you are at a disadvantage because
you are speaking on behalf of your mother and some of the
Commissioners may have some difficult questions for you so I don't
know if it is fair to proceed with this or if we should table it
until your mother is able to represent herself. Your presence
apparently indicates that she wants you to speak on her behalf.
With that, are there any questions?
Mr. McCann: I would like her to answer your question. He asked you if you knew
what type of business that the people interested in buying it are
thinking about bringing in?
Ms. Evans: I believe it is Baker Street Interiors, which is a furniture store.
Mr. McCann: It is listed right now as office services. Has anyone been
interested in using it in that respect?
Ms. Evans: We have had offers but the way the house is set up, the amount of
work they would have to do to it, they don't want to really buy it
without knowing they can use it for office purposes. People have
inquired but there hasn't been any response.
Mr. McCann: You have had offers?
Ms. Evans: There may have been one or two and the house has been for sale for
a good year.
Mr. LaPine: Is the property listed with a real estate agent or are you trying
to sell it on your own?
Ms. Evans: It is listed with a real estate agent.
Mr. LaPine: You have had it listed with the real estate company for how long?
Ms. Evans: I believe it was last December, she listed it for six months.
During that period I think we got one offer on the house. Since
then we relisted. We have had people come out and look at it but
nothing serious. The people interested in it now seem very
interested and they are the only ones that have come forward with a
request that they would be interested in the property.
Mr. LaPine: The people who want to buy it now want to put up a commercial
building, which means they are going to tear down the house and
construct a new building. I think the problem in Livonia is we
have a lot of commercial strips of buildings that are available.
They are not rented. We have a lot of vacant property. From my
point of view I am not in favor of constructing any more commercial
buildings until we do something with the buildings we already have
'rr.
11425
empty in the City. The property has been zoned OS, office, for a
considerable length of time. It seems to me that the real estate
people know that and they should concentrate on somebody who is
willing to put an office there. I hate to put you in that position
because I know your parents probably want to get rid of the
New property but we really don't need any more commercial development
in this area.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, if this were rezoned to C-1, this could be a development
that would encroach into the subdivision. The building could face
Munger couldn't it?
Mr. Nagy: True.
Mrs. Fandrei: It would then be facing two of the houses on Munger, which would
bring more traffic into the neighborhood. Is that true?
Mr. Nagy: There is that possibility.
Mr. Tent: The purchasers, do they have an option to buy contingent on the
rezoning?
Ms. Evans: Correct.
Mr. Tent: In other words it is not a firm offer other than if the zoning was
favorable, then they would go ahead with their plans?
Ms. Evans: But we have had no other offers on it.
Mr. Tent: But you did say that you did have some inquiries about the office
space?
Ms. Evans: We had offered it but they were not willing afterwards. Nobody
ever called back. They came out and looked at the house and that
was it.
Mr. Tent: I agree with my fellow Commissioners. We have a lot of vacant
commercial property. I wouldn't be in favor of going into any more
commercial property but this area is just beginning to be
developed. There is going to be action in that area and I would
not be disheartened that nothing is going to happen to that and by
us changing the zoning we would be infringing on the residential
area. That would be a concern of ours. So while I am not in favor
of this type of zoning, that is to the C-1, the OS is still
possible and there could be office space there.
Charles Powell, 29447 Munger: I live right across from this. I am opposed to the
rezoning of this property. It is a narrow strip of property with
frontage on Middlebelt Road and anything that could be built in
there, a furniture store or anything, would have to have entrances
and exits off Munger Street, which would be directly across the
street from my property. We do have the school with the police
union and the Michigan Education Association in the old school and
there is a lot of traffic there, a lot of school bus drivers coming
there to vote when they have elections and they have parties over
11426
there. I drove behind Baker Street Interiors after I found out
they were the ones interested in buying this and just looked at the
back of their property. Their garbage containers and stuff
were overflowing and blowing around in the back parking lot and it
was just absolutely a mess. I have been there several times
looking and that would be blowing into my property across the
street every time that they threw packing material, etc. out. I
know there are ordinances to take care of people that violate them
in such cases as this but it is an aggravation to me to have to
keep calling them. I don't need that. I think the property should
remain as it is. I am in favor of leaving it OS.
Susan Newman Foster, Executive Director for the Livonia Education Association,
19124 Merriman, Livonia: I have been asked to come and address some concerns by
the President of the Livonia Education Association, who is also a
resident of the City, and he has asked me to address some concerns
knowing that the property is being looked at by Baker Street
Interiors. He is interested in the site plans relative to
concerns, similar to the other gentleman's concerns, as to what
would we be facing from one of the entrances to the school
building, which does in fact have offices of the Michigan Education
Association and the Livonia Police Officers Association, as well as
the Livonia and Northville Education Associations. He is concerned
about maintaining some consistency recognizing that a good portion
of that neighborhood is residential and he is concerned as to what
the builder wants to do and what the City's expectations of any
commercial development would be. He is not speaking in opposition
but speaking of concern as to what will be built and some of the
other concerns that were addressed by the previous speaker.
Mr. Engebretson: The issues that are being raised would really be more
appropriately discussed at the site plan approval process, if and
when that were to happen.
Michelle Raymond from Baker Street Interiors, 33639 N. Hampshire: Baker Street
Interiors has been located in Livonia for the past 15 years. Prior
to being Baker Street we were located in Livonia under a different
name. We are now on Middlebelt between Five and Six Mile Road. We
like the area to do business in. There are similar stores in the
area that bring in business for us and we are no longer interested
in renting. The point was brought up that there are a lot of
vacant rentals available in the area but we are interested in
purchasing our own property and our own building and we plan to do
so whether we do it in Livonia or not but I would prefer to stay in
this area. I think the space having commercial on both the north
and the south side of it is appropriate for another commercial
building. We are planning to build an 8,000 to 10,000 square foot
store. The front half would be used for retail and the back for a
workroom. We are not a high traffic store by any means and would
not cause problems for the residents on Munger any more so than an
office building would. We do everything with the best of taste and
plan on doing so with the building and containing the garbage. The
trash that the other person mentioned behind our building is not
something we are necessarily responsible for. The dumpsters are
provided by the landlord and used by all the tenants.
11427
Mr. McCann: One of the things we are here to look for tonight is not what you
would particularly do with that piece of property as opposed to
what is the best zoning of that property. As zoning runs with the
land that particular parcel, should you move out and another tenant
moves in, the zoning runs with the land and they would be able to
Nft,, use it for whatever commercial use they see fit. What we have to
look at, is that the right type of zoning for that location? It
will leak into the residential area and I think that is what the
Planning Commission members have been stating tonight, not the type
of use. We would hope that you would find something in Livonia
that would be more appropriate. However, I think our objections
have been that commercial going back into residential is just not
good planning.
Ms. Raymond: The only areas that I would consider appropriate for my business in
Livonia would be that strip along Middlebelt being that there are
other similar stores, or the area around Six Mile and Newburgh,
which I can't afford.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-11-1-29 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#12-502-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
11, 1990 on Petition 90-11-1-29 by Carolyn Fullwood requesting to rezone
property located on the northwest corner of Middlebelt and Munger in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 from OS to C-1, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-11-1-29 be
— denied for the following reasons:
1) That there is currently an abundance of vacant commercially zoned
land in the City.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will tend to encourage similar
requests for changes of zoning on residential property located along
Middlebelt Road in this area.
3) That existing vacant commercial buildings in the City are prevalent
as evidenced by the several requests for changes of zoning to less
restrictive commercial zoning districts, similar to what is being
proposed, which the City has experienced in the past year because
the owners are having difficulty in finding tenants.
4) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the residential uses in close proximity to the subject
location.
5) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan which recommends office uses for the subject area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
11428
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-11-1-30 by ACO Development for D. S. Nair requesting to rezone
`�.. property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Gill Road
and Gary Lane in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-3.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have
also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to this petition, however, they do maintain overhead
lines on this property that would conflict with any construction.
They asked us to inform the developer that they will need a site
plan as soon as possible because they will need eight to ten weeks
to relocate their equipment.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come down and tell us why you are
making this request.
Angelo Constantine, 9766 Joy Road, Plymouth: I make this petition on behalf of Aco
Development. I am President of Aco Development. I believe the
petition is consistent with the surrounding area for R-3 zoning.
There is a problem with the ditch on the site that I believe with
my residential development I will take care of that. Are there any
questions?
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Constantine, as far as developing this site, would this be
developed in conjunction with any other property along that site?
Mr. Constantine: We have made contact with the adjacent property owner to the east
and as of yet we haven't come to any agreement.
Mr. Gniewek: How would you access that particular property as far as development
of homes?
Mr. Constantine: From Seven Mile with a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Tent: How many homes are you proposing if you are successful with the
rezoning?
Mr. Constantine: Thirty.
Mr. Tent: What would the lot sizes be?
Mr. Constantine: 80 feet by 120 feet.
Mr. Tent: What would be the sales price of the homes?
Mr. Constantine: Probably $190,000 and up.
Mr. Tent: What would the model mix be?
11429
Mr. Constantine: Ranches and colonials. It would be similar to Gill Orchard
Subdivision that I developed last year.
Mr. LaPine: John, the property that is directly behind him, assuming he was
successful in buying that land and he developed his subdivision,
- how would there be access to that property?
Mr. Nagy: The two long narrow parcels, actually is one parcel that extends
all the way to the Seven Mile Road frontage. That property is
split zoned. The first four hundred and some feet from Seven Mile
retains an RUFB zoning classification and the rear portion is an
R-3 classification. It goes back to the time before the actual
platting of the Bicentennial Estates Subdivision. The subdivider
at that time intended to incorporate all of this land into what was
to be Bicentennial Estates Subdivision so the rear portion was made
part of that subdivision area and where the existing homes were
they left in the RUFB zoning classification but for reasons that I
am not sure of these two long slender parcels were never
incorporated into the Bicentennial Estates Subdivision and they
remain today split zoned. That is why the rear portion is R-3 and
the front portion is RUFB.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, the houses on Gill Road, was there three to seven feet
left off the back of their property so this property could have the
right size lots plus a road.
Mr. Nagy: That is exactly right. Those lots on Gill Road have a double line.
The width between those two lines actually represents property
lines. The line on the east is the rear lot line of the lots
within the Gill Wood Subdivision and the old original parcel line
Soy is seven feet further to the west. The thinking there was to keep
that remnant parcel so it could be attached and made a part of
these two pieces to have an overall effect of width in the
east-west direction of 300 feet so that a road of 60 feet width
could be put up through the center and you would have 240 feet left
over which would be divided equally by 120 feet meeting the minimum
lot depth requirements of the R-3 zoning.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is all intact?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, that was the plan.
Dan Larabell, 19498 Laurel: I am opposed to this petition for the following
reasons: I live along the section that is closer to Northland
Road, which is the R-3 zoned section right now, and first of all
when we moved into our house on Laurel, as well as all the people
along Laurel as well as all the people along Gill Road from Seven
Mile to Northland, we were told by the real estate company as well
as the builder that property was zoned such that the wooded area in
there would not be built upon. That needs to be checked out. It
is true right now that the zoning in that area, unless it is
rezoned, you would not be able to put a street in that area and
build in that area because you will need to change it to R-3
zoning. The difficulty that the people, especially on Gill Road,
have is that the traffic is extremely high on Gill Road and the
11430
subdivision becomes more and more populated on both sides of Gill.
Both of us on the Laurel side as well as the Gill side paid a
premium for our homes to have this wooded section knowing there was
a zoning in place that would not allow building to occur in that
section. Therefore, we believe that putting a road in there and
putting the additional houses on both sides of the road would cause
us to have a decrease in property values. The other issue is there
is a stream that runs through there currently right now and we are
very concerned. The gentleman who came up and expressed his plans
for taking care of that stream did not identify specifically what
those plans are. We are very concerned with the methods they will
use to carry that water out of the area. Right now in the area, on
Gill Road, it floods. During the rain period, when it rains hard,
the whole area floods and the sewers actually will have, at times,
two feet of water flowing up out of the sewers. The area is not
sufficient unless there is a very good plan put in place in order
to carry the water out of there. Plus the land is very low in that
ravine. We are concerned about that. My other point is with us
having to lose our property value, I feel there are many other
areas in Livonia that can meet the housing demand such as the Seven
Mile-Newburgh area. My other question was relative to the
engineering drawings with the 8 foot section of property. I didn't
believe there was enough room to put a house on both sides of the
road and a road all the way through there and this gentleman has
confirmed that that is the truth. My final objection is the
cul-de-sac that would be at the end of the road there and would
require that the lot at the end there be possibly even a tighter
configuration than along the sides, which would take the people
nearer to the Northland area and have a higher density between
those houses than the new houses and lots that are put in their
Vin. place.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Larabell, you raised seven or eight points, many of which
really require a response. The zoning that you believe is
necessary in order for the developer to bring a street in there to
develop that land that is zoned R-3, which is precisely the same
zoning as your house, is certainly not the case. They don't need
to change the zoning in an RUFB district in order to cut a street
through. That determines the minimum lot size, much the same as
R-3 determines specific lot configuration as contrasting with R-2
or R-1. With respect to the builder or whoever represented the
notion that there wouldn't be any development back there, I guess
that is between you and them, but from the City's point of view it
has always been expected that there would be homes built in that
area. That is what the Future Land Use Plan calls for and that is
what the zoning calls for. Relative to the traffic on Gill Road,
as you heard, access would be taken from Seven Mile Road and it
could put a few extra cars on Gill going up to Eight Mile but for
the most part Seven Mile would bear the burden of that traffic.
Mr. Larabell: My concern isn't the burden of the traffic on Gill Road, rather it
is the privacy that the people on Gill Road are able to achieve
because of that wooded section in the back. The traffic on Gill
Road provides people along Gill Road with very little privacy and
that wooded section was an incentive for them to pay the premium on
the houses that they purchased.
11431
Mr. Engebretson: I understand your point. I am just trying to share with you the
other side of the coin that while your points are certainly
understandable, the fact of the matter is that zoning does exist to
provide for the development of that land. The land is privately
owned, and the owner has a right to use that land. I would also
like to mention that the drainage concerns you have, would
Now
certainly be a concern of the City and the Engineering Department
would be very involved if this zoning is successful and this
development should become a reality. It certainly wouldn't be done
without considerable involvement of the Engineering Department.
With respect to the Seven Mile-Newburgh development, south of Seven
Mile on the east side of Newburgh the zoning there for the new
houses under construction is R-3, which is the same R-3 type of
zoning proposed here. My purpose is not to be argumentative or to
diminish the importance of any of the points you made but I simply
wanted to give you the other perspective and I guess the most
important thing is even if we deny this petition, the developer
could knock those houses down north of Seven Mile Road and develop
the frontage with the RUFB classification or leave it vacant and
just drive a street through there and develop the rear as he is
proposing to do. It is a tough struggle from where you sit. Those
are the facts.
Peter Lindberg, 34555 Northland: It is right by my house where the storm sewer
drains into the ditch that comes down Seven Mile Road. I, and
speaking for some of my neighbors, have tremendous concerns about
the drainage in that area. It is very common to see water shooting
out of the drainage grates in that area and fill up in the GG13c
area so I think it needs to be addressed how that will be drained
for fear of us getting flooded out. The storm sewer there fills to
capacity regularly. If that storm sewer is unrestricted, it seems
Now that the problems will be worsened and also if more people are
dumping sump pumps into that system, it seems like the problem
would be worsened. Also with that area being low the water
collects there and if that area is built up so that the houses put
in there would be dry, we worry about the water coming into our
property.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy is there anything you could share with these folks
regarding their concerns on this drainage issue?
Mr. Nagy: The City is certainly aware of the drainage problems in that area
to the extent that the City has indicated that they will
participate in the enclosure of that open drainage ditch. Part of
the improvement of this subdivision, the open drainage ditch will
be made part of an underground storm sewer system and that
hopefully will relieve the flooding problems, the high water
problems that the overall neighborhood is experiencing in that
area so the water and sewer board will participate to enlarge the
sewer over and above what is needed to accommodate the drainage of
the subdivision. Whatever the increased cost to the subdivider to
handle the storm drainage to the larger neighborhood, the water and
sewer board will participate to enlarge that sewer to correct the
storm sewer problems of the neighborhood. The storm water will be
taken underground all the way to Seven Mile Road and then outlet
into the storm sewer system in the Seven Mile Road area. Our goal
Now is to solve your problems not make them worse.
11432
Mr. Lindberg: I realize that. I just wanted to make sure they understood the
magnitude of the problem we have.
Joseph Nalepa, 34620 Northland: I would just like to reiterate what they said
`. about the drainage problems. That storm drain that is in front is
a manhole about three foot in diameter, which I am sure you are
aware of. This spring when the rains came, water was pouring out
of that drain at least three feet in the air. There was a river
down Northland all the way up Gill onto Seven Mile. The City
brought a pumping device out, pumping a ten inch line out of that
sewer at the same time so you can appreciate the volume of water.
I have two other questions, the first one being what size, by
square foot, of homes is he proposing for this?
Mr. Shane: In an R-3 district, it doesn't have any "A" designation or "B" or
"C" designation therefore it is the minimum. The minimum for a
one-story plan is 1,150 square feet and for a two-story plan it is
1,380 square feet. That is what the minimum is. What the
developer is planning could be a different story.
Mr. Constantine: The question was what square footage the homes would be?
In developing a subdivision you have deed restrictions. I would
probably have restrictions similar to the ones in the Gill Orchard
Subdivision which allows for a minimum size for ranches, I believe,
was 1800 square feet and the minimum size for colonials was 2000
square feet. I gave you a ballpark figure of $190,000. It is kind
of hard to say right now but it is consistent with what is in the
area.
Mr. Tent: I asked the question and you gave me a ballpark figure. You said
$190,000. Now tell me exactly what are we looking at price wise?
I am curious now. You threw that price out at me and I marked it
down and I was very impressed.
Mr. Constantine: My idea is to keep the houses of good quality. Are you familiar
with the Gill Orchard Subdivision?
Mr. Tent: Yes but what are you talking about here?
Mr. Constantine: I am not the actual home builder. The price of the homes will be
predicated on how long that this drags on and what the market
values are but I would say $175,000 would be the bottom line for a
ranch. It would depend on the extras.
Mr. Tent: I am concerned because that is part of my record.
Mr. Nalepa: Is there any possibility there would be any condos of any kind?
Mr. Engebretson: You are guaranteed there would be no condos.
Carmel Schembri: I just moved in on the first of July. First, the builder guaranteed
me that was locked land down there. Second, my lot is filled with
water. I just spent another $20,000 to finish my house and there is a
drainage down there and it is full of water. It is going going to be
full of mosquitoes. There is a lot of work to be done. They are
11433
interested in an opening on Seven Mile and Gill. If the
Commissioner's check the record, down on Seven Mile and Gill every
day you can count the accidents. There is that blinking light down
there and if they open that road one-half a block away, can you
�► imagine the traffic you will get on Seven Mile?
Ron Grabowski, 19511 Gill Road: My major concern with the rezoning of the property
would be the density of the housing that is going in. I appreciate
the City's concerns about the sewers and all that. We just moved
in last summer and some of the concerns I have are the adequacy of
the utilities. People have already spoken to the fact about the
water filling up and things like that. We live on the end next to
the other RUFB property and we have had landscapers out and one of
the concerns we have already had was the inadequacy of the water
pressure in the area. I appreciate the fact that he can put a road
in now and develop the back property but we already have utility
type problems in there and I think this is going to exasperate it.
You are going to increase the density of the housing that is going
in. That is my concern. I don't wish to exaggerate the problem
that we already have over there. When the person from the Water
Department came out to put our meter in he acknowledged the fact
that section of Livonia already has an existing problem with low
water pressure and it would take several years for them to get
around that. I guess there is a main going in somewhere that they
are working on but if you change the zoning there I can see where
it will expedite the development of the property back there and it
will increase all of the problems we already have. That is my
concern.
'`r. Mr. LaPine: John, don't we have a water problem where they aren't allowing any
houses to be built west of Six Mile?
Mr. Nagy: I think it also affects this area. There is a moratorium on new
water taps until that situation is relieved.
Mr. LaPine: Do you understand that sir? That there is a moratorium on new
water taps in this area because of that problem. The City is aware
of that problem. We are not allowing any water taps in that area
right now until we try to solve that problem. John, how will that
affect this development?
Mr. Nagy: I don't know if I am prepared to respond to that since we are only
looking at the zoning issue. It is my understanding that
subdivisions that have already been approved, those building
permits will be honored. It is just new subdivisions that aren't
on stream now will not be issued a water tap permit until the water
line that comes out of the Huron River through Oakland County is
increased to capacity to accommodate the new development. They can
go through with their zoning, get their final approval, get all the
engineering but when it comes time to actually build the homes,
that is when the moratorium will take effect.
Mr. Constantine: I would like to add one thing in regards to the ditch. Our
11434
proposal is to pipe that ditch in with a five and one-half foot
storm sewer pipe. That is what the engineers have designed at this
point. It is just preliminary. One of the reasons to develop the
area, it will alleviate all the storm water problems in the area.
Mr. McCann: I would like to respond a little bit to what I have heard here
tonight. This is a zoning issue here tonight not for final plat
approval. I think one of the things we would look at when they
come in for plat approval is that the storm drains and everything
else had been addressed and that we do have okays on that. Tonight
it is more a question of what is the proper zoning for this piece
of land. A lot of people understandably are upset because they
were told it was land-locked, for whatever reasons, and they
couldn't build on there. Unfortunately that is a problem between
you and your developer or you and your real estate person whoever
made these comments to you when you purchased your land, if you did
pay a premium. It is privately owned land and they have a right to
develop their land as the zoning indicates. With regard to this
piece down here we are looking at making this one complete section,
not redoing it. Half of it is already R-3. We have to ask
ourselves tonight whether it is proper zoning to put that one
section from RUFB to R-3.
Greg Rohl, 19291 Gill Road: I just want to parrot essentially the same concerns
that everyone else has brought to light. I do have one question.
I am curious why is it that RUFB was zoned there originally if your
commentator indicated that the R-3 development was outlined so they
could eventually put a road in there?
`. Mr. Nagy: The proprietors of the Bicentennial Estates Subdivision, when they
assembled the land, they only bought the rear portions of the
parcels to the west of the subject area to comprise the
Bicentennial area. All of those parcels, prior to the Bicentennial
development, were all zoned in the RUFB classification. The
subdivider didn't want to buy the older homes on expensive road
frontage, they only bought the rear portions, the undeveloped
acreage portion so they didn't rezone all the way to the center
line of the road only to the lot line that they were acquiring.
They intended initially to acquire the R-3 zoned portions of these
two lots. For whatever reasons they didn't go ahead and exercise
their right to purchase so the zoning was already in place because
the original intention was to acquire it but not the frontage where
the old homes were.
Mr. Rohl: By denying the R-3 change and maintaining the RUFB that would keep
it consistent with the Gill Road properties and the properties on
Seven Mile Road. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: The properties on Gill Road are all now R-3 or R-2. The zoning for
the most part is already R-3 on Gill Road except for the residual
pieces where there are the older homes.
Mr. Rohl: If it wasn't changed, how would that impact on his development?
11435
Mr. Nagy: I think as the Chairman pointed out, he would have a couple of
options. One would be to leave the existing homes as they are on
larger pieces of property and put a road down between the two homes
or remove the homes and plat that area in one-half acre size lots
and where that zoning line leaves off, where the R-3 begins, that
area would have the 80 foot wide lots so within the new development
area, the first 368 feet of that subdivision would have one-half
acre size lots, the balance of the area would have 80 foot wide
lots.
Mr. Rohl: In terms of RUFB or R-3 lots, there is nothing you can do to change
the fact that we want the trees to stay there?
Mr. McCann: This question was not addressed to me but one of the things you
have to remember is this gentleman has been paying taxes on this
property. That is privately owned property. He is paying taxes
and you can't expect him to provide you with a private park.
Mr. Rohl: I understand, it was just misrepresented to me.
Mr. McCann: That, you would have to take up with your developer.
Bernard Whalen, 19342 Laurel: A lot of prices have been discussed and the square
footage, I believe the gentleman over here indicated that a house
could be put on there that would only be 1150 square feet. How do
we get a handle on what the exact cost of these buildings are going
to be?
Mr. Engebretson: We told you the ordinance requirements on terms of square footage
and lot sizes. The developer indicated a more grand plan, which
would be consistent, according to his description with what is
there, but the problem is you can't really pin him down and
condition this particular issue of rezoning on those kinds of
points of information because it is not relative from a legal point
of view. The issue here is a zoning issue. Now the City certainly
has a lot of control to look out for the interest of those
neighbors. I think it is fair to say the City would under no
curcumstances allow anything to come in there that is substandard
to what is there. Those are nice homes in that area and I think it
is safe to say that we could guarantee that substandard homes would
not be permitted as we can assure that water, rather than running
off on peoples shrubs and lawns and down into their basements, is
going to be put into a pipe. The City has a lot of control over
the developer. The last thing he wants to do is to go in there and
create another problem that will prevent him from selling a home
and also facing the wrath of the people on both sides. I realize I
am straying off the subject but I think your interest would be
certainly protected in the platting phase which would be the proper
place to air out those issues. Not that your concerns aren't
really important but we can't force him into that tonight.
Mr. Tent: I just want to assure this gentleman and the people in the audience
that the next step here would be to come in for site plan approval.
At the site plan approval meeting we would address all the issues
and we have been very successful here on this Planning Commission
11436
throughout the City to make the neighborhoods compatible. I, as
one Commissioner, would like to assure you when he does come back,
if he is successful with this rezoning, the homes will be equal to
or better than they have in the general area.
Nor
Mr. Rohl: This same group will address that particular issue?
Mr. Tent: Yes sir. When they come in with the site plan at that point we
address these things. We look at the size of the homes and we look
at the arrangement of the streets, etc. We really have your
interest at heart and my interest because we want to continue to
build a good City so as the Chairman indicated we certainly
wouldn't have any substandard homes in an area that would do
anything to distract from the value of your homes.
Mr. McCann: The greatest guarantee they have about that is when you have R-3
developments, I know personally the lots are going for $40,000 to
$50,000 in that area and you are just not going to spend that kind
of money on a lot to put an 1100 square foot home there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, what has Council done on developments where they
have to tap into the water? Have they had any experience like
that?
Mr. Nagy: No, the Council hasn't any experience on that issue.
Mr. Engebretson: That is a brand new issue. It has just emerged in the last few
weeks and we don't have all the details of that.
`'r . Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Constantine, if this were to prevail, you realize they may say
" Fine you may build, but" and you may wait more than two years?
Mr. Constantine: Because of the moratorium?
Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to say if you are not aware of this, I am not
even sure what the authority is, it's not the City, but I guess it
is the Huron Transmission Line, the point being that there is a
moratorium issued on water taps north of Five Mile Road going into
Oakland County for the foreseeable future. You can build your
building but you can't tap into the water. Whether that will last
a year or two or two weeks, we don't know. That is really all we
can tell you about it.
Mr. Constantine: I will look into that. The only reason I was hesitant on the
prices of the houses were if you can tell me what 2 by 4's will
cost in 1991 or 1992 or concrete or labor, then I could probably
tell you what the price of the houses will be with more accuracy.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-11-1-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
`r..
11437
#12-503-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
11, 1990 on Petition 90-11-1-30 by ACO Development for D. S. Nair
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile
Road between Gill Road and Gary Lane in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4
from RUFB to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 90-11-1-30 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a uniform zoning
classification for the subject area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning represents the extension of a
zoning district which is the most prevalent in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development
of the property so as to be compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding single family residential uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
*8:55 - Lee Morrow entered the meeting at this time.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-11-1-31 by Dominic Soave requesting to rezone property located on the
east side of Newburgh Road north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4
``" of Section 5 from RUFC to C-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
that while site plans have not been received with the petition, it
may be necessary to provide appropriate widenings of Newburgh Road
in the area of the site. Further, due to the limited capacity of
the off-site storm sewer systems, it may be necessary to detain
some storm water run-off from the site. We have also received a
letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to this
petition, however, they do maintain overhead lines on this property
that would conflict with any construction. They want us to inform
the developer that they will need a site plan as soon as possible
since they will need eight to ten weeks to relocate their
equipment.
We have also received a traffic report from the Department of
Public Safety which the Planning Commission had requested stating
currently Newburgh Road is 5 lanes for approximately 300 feet north
of Seven Mile, where it starts to taper and returns to a four lane
roadway about 530 feet north of Seven Mile Road. The center left
turn lane is designed for southbound left turns, meaning northbound
\ri.
11438
vehicles are expected to turn left from the through lane. To put
it another way, the left turn lane exists from the south drive of
Fountainhead Plaza or the rear drive of Brose Electric to Seven
Mile Road.
�... An up to date traffic volume count is not available. The traffic
study published in 1989 showed a southbound traffic count, north of
Seven Mile as 7,865 and a northbound count at 8 Mile Road of 5,781.
I do not know the date of the counts, but believe that they are out
of date and would expect the current counts to be at least 50%
greater.
A computer run of accident experience was made for Newburgh between
Eight Mile Road and Seven Mile Road for the period January 1, 1988
to December 4, 1990, or slightly less than three years. Time did
not permit an examination of the reports to delete those occurring
south of Seven Mile nor those on Seven Mile Road that occurred some
distance from the intersection. Private property reports (those in
the shopping center) were deleted. The survey shows that 172
accidents occurred at or near Seven Mile. The 1989 Michigan State
Police accident summary (MALI) shows this intersection to have the
third highest number of accidents within Livonia, and it is the
leader in personal injury accidents. A separate enclosure provides
added details.
Based on the growth of traffic volumes in this area, more accidents
can be expected to occur. An additional commercial establishment
will compound the problem.
A sketch map of the area is enclosed to assist visualization. Also
enclosed are six photos of the area. The locations are plotted on
the map with an arrow indicating the direction the camera was
pointed.
The problem could be alleviated somewhat by providing an extension
of the center left turn lane. Also a right turn
deceleration/acceleration lane should be provided on the east side
of Newburgh. Further, the drives for the new business should be
directly opposite, or as nearly so as possible, to the existing
drives.
Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come down and tell us what you have on
your mind.
Norm Kaipio, 30867 Fargo: I am representing Mr. Soave. Right now the owner of the
property has a tentative, depending on the rezoning, agreement on a
15-year lease for a large tenant. He believes that because there
is C-1 to the west and to the south that this zoning would be
compatible with the area. He realizes that the traffic pattern
would be increased and he would have no problem with putting in an
extra lane as was discussed in the letter. At this time he has a
tentative site plan which would be approximately a 13,000 square
foot building. The rear would be only fire exit doors so the
residents in the area would know there would be no traffic at the
11439
back of the building. There would be a wall required on the east
and north side, which would be required by the zoning ordinance.
Basically, that is about it. I could field some questions if
anyone has any.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you represented Mr. Soave very long?
Mr. Kaipio: No.
Mr. Vyhnalek: There is a history of this property that goes back quite a few
years when Leo Soave, it must be his father, tried to buy the
property across the street. A few years ago they wanted to put in
Pro Golf and also I think it would be intruding on that new
subdivision if C-1 or C-2 would start up from Brose Electric and go
on north. I think some members of this Commission and I for sure
want to leave that property as is. We always thought that property
would stay like that and that is why Brose brought the property
north of him and will not sell it and will not develop it at this
time. As one Commissioner I am against this and I feel it should
stay as is.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Kaipio, I guess you are new to Mr. Soave and to that particular
area. Let me alert you on one thing. On the grandiose promise you
just made that he would be concerned for the neighbors with exit
doors and he would build a wall, you look at the property he has
right now, that is completely contrary to what he proposed at the
beginning of the petition. He kept pleading hardship and he
brought in very intensive uses. He said he couldn't get by with
the C-1 zoning that he had there. He needed more intensified
zoning to attract more tenants. He got the Secretary of State's
office in there which attracts a lot of traffic. That area there
is so compounded. It is like five pounds in a two pound can. For
him to send you as his representative to tell us he is going to
work very compatible with the people and I am going to be a good
neighbor. I can't buy that. If I could read into the record so
the members of the Council would know exactly what I am talking
about, we have all the action on this particular piece of property.
Could we read that into the record? I would be very happy to read
it to show you the history and what has happened with this
Commission insofar as that property is concerned.
Mr. Engebretson: It is the property across the street and I think that what Ray is
concerned about is the issue of the value of the perceived
commitments of concern about the neighbors because of what has
happened across the street. We are talking about the man's style.
The fact of the matter is it really doesn't have anything to do
with this particular zoning issue. I do think that the issue will
be completely documented in the notes that go on to the Council.
Mr. Tent: I will withdraw my request if we will just forward the report on to
the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson: I think we really need to confine the issue to the petition that
we are being presented with here tonight but it is hard to separate
some of these other things as it is hard to separate the site plan
,,,�� from the rezoning issue.
11440
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Constantine, when this first came up, this particular piece of
property a few years ago, being a resident of the area myself, I
was opposed to the rezoning and I feel stronger now with the more
intense use across the street and the rezonings on the south side,
rr. but as I looked at the general area and the vacancies we are
looking at, and I am speaking of the areas east on Seven Mile, we
have four vacancies in Stamford Plaza and we have five across the
street in the K Mart Plaza, your petitioner is claiming that he has
a possible tenant. That sounds fine. There are a lot of vacancies
all over the City that this tenant could occupy. One of the things
as a Planning Commission that we look at is the health, safety and
welfare of the surrounding area. As you just heard the accident
rate in this particular intersection area is the third highest in
the City. Just because of that one fact I would have to speak very
strongly against this petition. No matter what the user of a
13,000 square foot building, it would be intense and would add to
this particular problem which would pose a health, safety and
welfare problem for the residents. This is basically north of
Brose a residential area. Mr. Soave was able to get the rezoning
across the street to the dismay of many of us and many of us were
not comfortable with that. I am more uncomfortable now and want to
go on record that this will promote more rezoning north of the
present C-1 area on both sides of Newburgh and I strongly oppose
it.
Mr. Kluver: A question to the petitioner. Is this property purchased on the
condition of rezoning?
Mr. Kaipio: No he owns the property now.
Mr. Kluver: How long has he owned the property?
Mr. Kaipio: Approximately a year and a half.
Mr. Kluver: I just find it a little unusual. Normally when developing
commercial properties or unique types of rezoning, normally it is
purchased on the condition of rezoning. It is an unusual
circumstance.
Mr. Morrow: John, was this part of a parcel that had been put together by
another petitioner to bring in apartment zoning?
Mr. Nagy: No this was not part of that.
Mr. Morrow: The point I was trying to make, I know we were opposed to it but
did we ever actually vote on it or was it withdrawn?
Mr. Nagy: I believe it was denied by the Planning Commission and withdrawn at
the City Council level.
Mr. Morrow: Even though it is not that parcel, we were on record as opposing
apartments in that area. We were trying to make a strong statement
that we wanted to see that area developed as single family homes,
much in the same zoning classification as we see on the map on the
same side of the street. That is just to amplify the point that
Mr. Kluver had indicated that we had already denied one request for
11441
commercial and along with that we denied an apartment appeal, which
is a form of residential but certainly not the single family
residential.
Mr. Engebretson: I am sure you are aware sir that the Future Land Use Plan
designates this as low density residential.
Andy Lendrun of Lendrum & Ronayne Development, 19182 Augusta: I am opposed to
this. When we rezoned our property, Fox Creek to the east of this,
we had hoped to get some commercial but in talking with the City we
were told don't waste your time. Make it residential, which we
did. The other problem I had I can look bad on my own, I don't
need any help and these people that bought from us, as the
developer and the realtor, I didn't guarantee them anything. I
told them yes Brose Electric has some commercial and the rest of
the property is zoned RUF and in talking to the City it will remain
RUF. That is what I have been told. I can't guarantee anything.
That is what I have been told and that is what these people have
been told. They bought these lots and built some real beautiful
homes and they knew they couldn't get anything in writing but they
would like to deal in good faith. I look to you for guidance and
thank you very much.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you still control Lots 6 and 7?
Mr. Lendrum: No sir.
Mr. Engebretson: The reason I asked if you still owned them, I wondered if you had
filed an official protest petition to force the Council into a
Saw approve
majority position if they decided, for whatever reason, to
approve this.
Jeff Wilkie, 19231 Augusta: As the Commission has already pointed out the City of
Livonia already has an overabundance of "For Lease", "For Rent",
"For Sale" C-1 property and to me I cannot see the City putting
itself into the position of creating another white elephant out
there. The gentleman says he has a 15-year lease possible but that
is all fine and dandy if that actually happens but more and likely
it won't. Other than that the Seven Mile - Newburgh area is very
congested along with a professional building that will sooner or
later arise on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh. It
will be a very high traffic volume there. Other than that I am
very opposed to the situation of living behind a C-1 building and
not knowing exactly what would be there. When we moved in it was
very open to us that it was generally farm land or RUF.
John Piekarski, 19247 August: I basically just like to support what Mr. Lendrum
and Mr. Wilkie have said. I feel the same way. There is an
overabundance of commercial property that is not being leased or
rented at this time. The traffic problem. I know what that is
like. I go to work and come home every day trying to turn in and
out of the subdivision and it is quite congested now. I am
obviously opposed to living behind a commercial building with
obvious noise, dirt and garbage problems. I have a young daughter
�.. and I don't want her to grow up with those conditions in our
backyard.
11442
Arlene Lendrum, 19182 August: I am opposed to this along with my neighbors. My
big concern is with the traffic. It is very bad. I am opposed to
it.
fir.. William Lute, 19358 Newburgh: I am just north of the property. I am very much
against it because if it gets rezoned he could put anything in
there. A fast food place. There are a lot of traffic problems
there now. My wife works at Haggerty and Seven Mile and she leaves
one-half an hour early to go one mile. Sometimes she gets so
disgusted just getting out of her driveway. She says she hates to
go to work. That is one of the reasons. North of me all the
people that live there are all retired in their seventies and
eighties and it is pretty hard to get out of your driveway. I have
lived there 66 years and I have seen all of these developers come
in and put up whatever they want and I want to build a shed to keep
some of my wagons in and the City of Livonia won't let me. Aren't
I as good as those builders? Think this over real good before you
make a decision. Think of us, my neighbors and myself. We would
appreciate it very much. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Engebretson: I drive past your house two to four times a day, I am one of
those people and I apologize for that, but I would like to put your
mind to rest about one thing that if this zoning were for
some reason successful, he would not be able to put a fast food
restaurant in there. That would require C-2 zoning and waiver use.
I guess the point we were addressing earlier is that Mr. Soave's
track record is that he comes in low and then gets more intense and
more intense and more intense as the history across the street
would show. Anyways the C-1 zoning would not permit that kind of
use.
Debbie Morris, 19295 August: I am opposed to this rezoning. I live behind the
site. I am a new homeowner. I have children and I would prefer to
keeping it rural residential for my children and for the
neighborhood.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-11-1-31 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
##12-504-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
11, 1990 on Petition 90-11-1-31 by Dominic Soave requesting to rezone
property located on the east side of Newburgh Road north of Seven Mile
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to C-1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 90-11-1-31 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will tend to invite similar
requests for changes of zoning on property to the north along
Newburgh Road thus promoting strip commercial zoning which is
contrary to good planning and zoning principles.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area.
11443
3) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan which recommends low density residential land use for the
subject area.
4) That uses permitted by the proposed C-1 zoning district would tend
N°" to generate an unacceptable amount of additional vehicular traffic
in the area, which would be a safety hazard.
5) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to
limit the location, uses and occupancy of buildings, structures and
land to be used for various purposes so as to promote an
appropriate mix of land uses and to promote the appropriate and
orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood.
6) That there is no demonstrated need for additional commercial
facilities, which would be permitted by the proposed change of
zoning, to serve the surrounding neighborhoods in the area.
7) That the traffic report dated 12-11-90 by Lieutenant Thorne is one
of the basis for this denial.
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. Engebretson: The next item was the John DelSignore rezoning issue which was
Nom. withdrawn at the beginning of the meeting. We will move on to the
last item.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-10-3-10 by Philip Barth requesting to vacate a portion of Surrey
Avenue north of Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21.
Mr. Bakewell 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
since there are no existing Detroit Edison facilities within the
subject right-of-way as well as the sanitary sewer outlet for the
Looney Bakery, it is recommended that a full-width easement for
public utilities be retained over the area to be vacated. We have
also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they have no
facilities in the subject area and therefore have no objections.
We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they
have no objection to the proposed vacation provided easements are
reserved the full width of the existing street/alley to protect
their existing equipment. They state if the reservation of an
easement is not desired, they request that the vacation of the
subject street/alley be postponed until Detroit Edison has had an
opportunity to arrange for relocation expenses with the property
owner.
11444
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? It is hard to proceed with a public
hearing if the petitioner is not here.
Mr. Nagy: I think there was a breakdown in communication. We sent notice to
Mr. Barth because he was the petitioner but I think the one that
really initiated the request was his tenant who operates the Looney
Baker, Mr. Strauch, so I have the feeling that Mr. Barth expected
Mr. Strauch to be here. I think that is why Mr. Barth is not in
attendance.
Mr. Engebretson: Should we reschedule?
Mr. McCann: My suggestion was we have the public hearing. I don't think it is
necessary for the petitioner to be here as long as we allow anybody
who has any objections to give them the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak for or
against the petition?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-10-3-10 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
#12-505-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December
11, 1990 on Petition 90-10-3-10 by Philip Barth requesting to vacate a
portion of Surrey Avenue north of Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 90-10-3-10 until the study meeting of December 18, 1990.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: Gniewek, LaPine
ABSENT: None
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.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-506-90 RESOLVED that, Petition 90-10-2-33 by Ball & Cue requesting waiver use
approval to utilize a tavern license in connection with an existing
billiard room located on the north side of Joy Road between Harrison and
Thorpe in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, be taken from the table.
11445
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#12-507-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
13, 1990 on Petition 90-10-2-33 by Ball & Cue requesting waiver use
o„r, approval to utilize a tavern license in connection with an existing
billiard room located on the north side of Joy Road between Harrison and
Thorpe in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 38, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-10-2-33 be
denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use will generate an unacceptable amount of
additional vehicular traffic in the area.
3) That the proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with
the adjoining uses of the area.
4) Because this waiver use does go with the land, we would want to be
certain it would not be abused.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: Gniewek, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Petition 90-8-3-8 by Michael Surma requesting to vacate a 6 foot wide private
easement for public utilities as established across Lot 3, Richland Estates
Subdivision, located north of Richland Avenue and east of Stark Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 was left on the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-508-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Sections 18.50 of Zoning Ordinance #543 with respect to the control of
signs.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be 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.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
11446
#12-509-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Section 5.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to add day care nursery
facilities as a waiver use in the RUF district regulations.
''rr.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be 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.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-510-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 613th Regular Meeting held on November
27, 1990 are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-511-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 90-11-8-18 by Joseph J. Weiss requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of an existing
building on the west side of Farmington between Seven Mile and Clarita
in Section 9 be approved, as revised, subject to the following
conditions:
1) That Plan #9025, Sheets P-1 and 2 as revised on 12/11/90 by
Lindhout Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That in addition, the petitioner has also agreed to provide
additional landscaping in the public right of way by planting at
least one (1) new 2" caliper street tree and sod.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#12-512-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Sign Permit Application by Detroit Detroit Inc. on behalf of
Livonia Travel for two awning signs to be located at 27225 W. Seven Mile
Road until the study meeting of December 16, 1990.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
11447
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-513-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Sign Permit Application by Randall Sign on behalf of Childrens
Palace requesting approval for a second wall sign located at the Livonia
Mall until the study meeting of January 15, 1991.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#12-514-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Michigan National Bank
requesting approval to erect two wall signs on a building located at
37276 Six Mile be approved for the following reason:
1) That Sign Plan #12309 for Michigan National Bank dated 10/5/90
prepared by Fairmont Sign Co. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 614th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on December 11, 1990 was adjourned at 10:26
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary
L /
ATTEST: 4`k ,
Ja k Engebr1tson, Chairman
jg
r..