HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-09-18 11270
MINUTES OF THE 608th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
ter.
On Tuesday, September 18, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 608th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Herman Kluver, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 60 persons in the audience.
Members present: Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei Conrad Gniewek
William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Donald Vyhnalek
R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Members absent: Jack Engebretson
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Kluver 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. Planning Commission resolutions
become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning
v., 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.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-1-17 by Southwood Construction Co. , Inc. requesting to rezone
property located on the west side of Harrison, north of Five Mile Road
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from R-9I and OS to R-C and R-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
the development of this area into a residential use may accelerate
the need for the improvement of Harrison Avenue north of Five Mile
Road. They further state the area in question could be expected to
participate under the provisions of a Special Assessment District
program for the improvement of this street. We have also received
a letter from Allie F. Fayz of Harrison Square Plaza stating they
are very much in favor of this change and would request we begin
work on this as soon as possible. He states use of the entire
space will be more beneficial to everyone involved. We have
received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to the petition, however they do maintain overhead lines
on these properties that would conflict with any construction. We
have also received a letter from Gary Garland of 15809 Harrison who
..r is now in the audience and wishes to read his own letter into the
record.
11271
Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner present?
Michael Downes, 26105 Orchard Lake Road, Farmington Hills: I am the architect for
Southwood Construction. With me here tonight is also the land
+r,r„ developer, Mr. Gottlieb, who is the owner of Southwood Construction
and the Vice President in Charge of Lands for Development, which is
John Retzlaff. This particular site contains, at the present
time, the Madison Elementary School, which is vacated. We feel in
order to follow with the residential order of the entire general
neighborhood off of Harrison Road and surrounding us to the west
and to the north and to the east, we feel we should go with the
transitional area of the residential condominium construction. The
portion in the rear, because we are abutting an R-1, we felt would
go with an R-1 to continue that portion. This particular site, if
the Planning Commission will recall, is the same site which this
Commission approved several months ago where we showed R-C over the
entire development. When this site went to Council, the Council
denied the rezoning petition for both sites and had a resolution
coming back to the Planning Commission asking us to rezone the
entire area in whatever manner we felt was right. In this proposal
we have at the present time before you to be rezoned R-C would be
the area presently zoned R-9I and the back to approximately this
area ( Mr. Downes pointed this out on the map) that area would be
zoned R-1 and would have 16 cul-de-sac lots coming off Roycroft or
Rayburn. The rest of the project would be R-C condominiums which
would be a total of 72 units in this particular area in
configurations of 3 and 4 unit buildings, one, two and three
bedroom units. All of the traffic would be off Harrison Road. The
single family would not be connected with the R-C and would be more
or less attached to the adjoining subdivision. We feel at this
time that the R-C is a good transitional area because it maintains
with the residential of the neighborhood all the way around to the
east, to the north and to the west and we feel this would be a
transition between Harrison and the single family. I would also
mention that even at the study session we also discussed the same
thing and we felt the fact that we reduced our density from 108 to
88, that was the wishes of the Council. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Gary Garland, 15809 Harrison: I have about 400 feet of property directly adjacent
to this property. The developer stated that the condominiums is a
transitional between the two residential neighborhoods. I don't
understand that putting condominiums in between two residential
neighborhoods is a transition of any kind. It only seems to be an
interruption.
On May 21, 1989 the Livonia City Council unanimously agreed that a
change in zoning to R-C would be totally against the residential
zoning of the majority of the adjoining properties and streets. In
particular the Council took notice of the large lots with RUF
zoning on Harrison and Broadmoor where condominiums would be in
direct contrast. The portion of the total property covered by
Petition 90-8-1-17 is immediately adjacent to these streets. Also,
the Council took notice to the number of children from the Rayburn
and Roycroft Subdivision picketing the Council meeting. The kids
did get their attention.
11272
It appears that the petitioner is staying with his initial attack
plan of dividing the people of the surrounding neighborhood by
suggesting that one-half of the property be rezoned R-1 while the
other half of the property be rezoned R-C. If the rear portion of
„` the property can be rezoned to residential and developed at a
profitable level, I don't understand why the other half of the
property can't be done the same way and the entire neighborhood
could remain residential. The only person who is in favor of it,
other than the petitioner, is the person who owns the shopping
center on Five Mile. Of course if I owned a shopping center, I
would rather have condominiums or a heavy concentration of people.
I believe that all of the property in this area should be rezoned
residential with a minimum of 70 foot lots. That is the
appropriate type of zoning. The present zoning of R-9I and OS were
based on Mr. Spiro having direct access for all traffic to Five
Mile. Mr. Spiro made the decision to give up his Five Mile access
for his own personal reasons. Many Livonia citizens should not
have to suffer for Mr. Spiro's financial gain.
In the tentative proposed site that they now put in front of us, I
am positive that if we get by the mathematics of how many acres
they have split off and made residential that at this point they
have increased the concentration of the condominium site plan that
they propose as an improvement. They have an alternate plan with
their other petition that says if they don't get their
condominiums, we want to put in 128 units for senior citizens and
we want to go to a maximum concentration and we want to build them
right up close to the road, so if you neighbors don't want to allow
us to have our condominiums, we are going to jam this senior
citizen development down your throat. Hopefully the City and the
Planning Commission and the residents of Livonia don't function by
intimidation.
This developer suggests that it is reasonable to put a minimum of
seven or maybe more back yards into my side yard. It is
uncomprehendable to me that the City could expect me or any citizen
to have in this plan a minimum of seven back yards into my side
yard and in his alternate plan he only wants to put 14 unit back
yards into my side yard. I don't think anyone in the Planning
Commission would expect that. I implore each member of the City
Planning Commission to deny Petition 90-8-1-17 and to set a minimum
lot size of 70 feet for Petition 90-8-1-18. I see no benefits for
the City as a whole or to Livonia residents immediately affected by
this addition of condominiums in a residential neighborhood.
Dick Massingill, 15905 Harrison: I was here before against the previous petition.
I might add that the company that is supporting the petition is a
real estate company and what real estate company wouldn't support
any petition with property to sell? They don't even live in
Livonia. I support everything Mr. Garland said. He just did it
better than I am going to do. I live on Broadmoor and Harrison.
We have mentioned before about the amount of traffic on Harrison.
The City Engineering have indicated they would have to accelerate
their improvement plans for Harrison. I moved there in 1958 and
11273
the only improvement we have had on Harrison is patchwork. I am
not encouraging them to accelerate but what I am saying is that the
additional traffic is going to be unbelievable as far as Harrison
is concerned. We are now paying for the paving of Broadmoor. I am
Nr not sure what the additional traffic will do to that. The traffic
undoubtedly will go both ways. It will go out Harrison to Five
Mile and Harrison north to Broadmoor and Broadmoor over to
Middlebelt. So we are going to have that much more traffic.
I understand the Commission is only concerned with the rezoning.
As far as I am concerned R-1 is the only acceptable rezoning in
that area. There is no comparison between RUF and R-C zoning.
You don't see it but all the lots on the other side of Harrison are
all acre lots. They are just across the street.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you know that this land to the east is R-9I and he could build
on there at this time?
Mr. Massingill: I realize that. I am not in favor of that either.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are not in favor of senior citizens housing? There are
thousands of senior citizens in this City waiting for homes and you
are against it?
Mr. Massingill: I am not saying that at all. I understand the City just approved
a big project for senior citizens.
Coleen Cosgrove, 28682 Broadmoor: I am concerned with what is going to be put in
there because I feel it will change the neighborhood. I feel if it
is condominiums, what is the expense of the condominiums, what is
,rr the clientele. It could certainly change all of the neighborhood
there. I just wanted to voice that I am concerned and I hope you
are not going to squish a bunch of profit-making situations in
there. I have children and I am concerned about condominiums
bringing in other children and what is the clientele going to be
like. I am on Broadmoor and it is already a cut through for
teenagers. So I am going to have how many more adults and children
and that coming down there? No animal or child will have a chance.
I am just really concerned. I moved to Livonia because I felt it
was a solid and safe City and I don't want to be disappointed
because someone is going to make some profit and squish a bunch of
things in there and then we are going to find it run down and not
taken care of. They have nice big lots. If you come off of
Middlebelt, you are in the country. I would hate to see that
ruined. I hope a wise decision is made. Senior citizens don't
scare me as much because I think they are going to be a part of the
crowd. They were saying something about 128 senior citizen units
or 72 condominiums. That is a lot of things on that little piece
of property. I am concerned about Harrison and the number of
people that are there.
Brady Walker, 15445 Harrison: We moved there about 5 1/2 years ago and my property
value has gone up 110% since then. Since I have lived there two
new homes have gone up and at least four or five complete
renovations and additions and dormers have gone up on Harrison
11274
alone. The community is growing and property values are going sky
high. I would like the developers to convince me that either one
of these proposals are going to guarantee me that my property is
going to continue to rise, or stabilize or decrease since we don't
know the clientele that will be coming in. I am also concerned
about why should the improvements of Harrison Avenue, which are
inevitable if this happens, why should I and all the other
residents of Harrison pick up the tab for the new assessment for
this improvement on Harrison while they make a large profit by
jamming all these units into this small land. I got kids ranging
from 3 to 10 and Harrison is a busy street. We are talking about
bringing in 72 to 115 more cars on that street a day. I don't see
any other access except Harrison Avenue. I don't see any guarantee
that my investment is secure while their profits are definitely
secured.
Lillian Edney, 15405 Harrison: I have lived on Harrison since 1958. I live
between Five Mile and the school entrance. There are 16 houses on
both sides of the street. All lots are rather large and six of
those houses are still occupied by people that lived there when we
moved in. It is not a transient neighborhood. Harrison is a 1/2
mile feeder road but it ends at Terrence so all the traffic has to
come through. Who gets to do the Harrison repairs? The people on
Harrison or the people who are going to tear the street up with
their bulldozers and things? Also Madison School has asbestos. I
have been assured that as long as it is not tampered with we in the
neighborhood are safe but once they start tearing it down, then we
have our problems. Who is going to say we in the neighborhood are
going to be protected when that takes place? You said there are
2,000 people on the senior citizens list, some of those I am sure
"'u. are government sponsored and they will have to have a certain
income. I can understand the shopping center, wouldn't you want to
have that many more people that could take advantage of the things
you have to offer? They don't live there. I want to really
understand how it blends in with the neighborhood. I still can't
buy the idea of Harrison being the only entrance and exit. Can you
figure out if there is a big fire how will the Fire Department get
in? When Madison School was there, there was a wall separating our
lot and the convalescent home. I implore you that R-1 residential
is fine but the condominiums and that many units for senior
citizens, I can't see it.
Jeanie Kehn, 15730 Harrison: That is directly across from the drive from Madison
School. My drive is opposite their drive. I would like to take
exception sir, I happen to be a senior citizen but I do not feel
that a senior citizen complex put in across from me that I am going
to be able to afford it unless it is going to be subsidized by the
federal government. Is it? Can anyone answer that?
Mr. Kluver: We can't at this point in time. We are looking at the issue of
rezoning right here.
Mrs. Kehn: That is my big objection. I don't like a high rise. The existing
zoning does allow high rise.
11275
Mr. Kluver: We are talking about condominiums and a portion of residential.
That is the issue at hand.
Mrs. Kehn: My biggest problem is access. Mr. Spiro went and sold a piece of
property that afforded access to the main highway and another thing
is why should we have to pay for paving? We know the whole street
is going to be wrecked when they tear down the school. On top of
that the access to their water is right in my drive. Is that going
to be moved?
Mr. Kluver: You are opposed to it Mrs. Kehn?
Mrs. Kehn: I am not completely opposed. I am opposed to so much heavy duty
traffic. It wouldn't fit the neighborhood.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, the question has come up several times as far as the
burden of the cost of the repaving of a particular street. Could
you explain any type of formula that is used? In other words,
would a unit like this be assessed a certain amount and then each
of the residents assessed another amount?
Mr. Nagy: A special assessment paving program is the program by which the
City tries to identify those properties that will share a
particular benefit as a result of a road improvement and those that
share a special benefit as a result of the road improvement, pay
for that road improvement. In this case, because of the properties
in front of as well as the fact that this property owner has such a
large piece of property, to try to determine what kind of formula
for sharing those special benefits, will be a real chore. I am not
sure what type of formula the City Engineering Department has in
mind for this but a special assessment paving program is just that,
trying to identify those properties that share a special benefit
and determine what that cost is and through a sharing program
spread that cost across all of those property owners that are going
to share in those special benefits. I don't have that information
other than to tell you it will be Engineering's job to try to find
out what that shared formula will be.
Mr. Gniewek: If there is a larger amount of property that is involved, that
particular property will be paying more than the individual
property owner? They would be paying a proportionate amount for
the amount of traffic that they are generating basically?
Mr. Nagy: They have a greater piece of property, therefore they are going to
participate to a greater extent. I can't tell you if it is 80% or
50% other than on a proportional basis they will pay more.
Mr. Downes: This particular subject has come up quite often. I want to make
this statement. Southwood Construction will pay, regardless of the
special assessment, we will pay 100% of the cost up to our property
line because beyond that point we shouldn't have to go any further.
We don't want anyone going any further than that except for the
people who live there and they will still have their privacy but
Southwood Construction would pay 100% of the cost of the
improvement to Harrison Road.
11276
Dorothy Bruce, 29218 Broadmoor: Are we talking now about only the R-9I?
Mr. Kluver: The OS and R-9I.
Mrs. Bruce: First of all, it is very wet back there. The R-1, it will go that
`�. way eventually with I hope less houses than we are talking about
here. If you saturate that area with that many units, we are going
to be flooded out. The kids could never play in that area when
they had the school there, I would say half the time, because it
was so wet. There is a creek that I got covered that carries a lot
of water into Bell Creek under the property but it is still very,
very low. That is going to be a major problem. As far as senior
citizen housing, I realize there is a need but this area is
becoming oversaturated. We have Harrison School, which is a block
away, that is going into senior citizen housing. The Council
approved that. We have Trinity Senior Citizens Housing. The
Council approved that. That is within a 1/4 mile of us. We have
the American House, which is almost across the street from that.
We have two retirement homes on Middlebelt plus a convalescent
home. We have the apartments that have been there for 15 to 20
years. The rentals are not all filled now and the apartment rental
is very, very reasonable in there. I personally think that is
where I would go if I was going to move and stay in this area.
Where can you get an apartment for as low as $200 a month in
Livonia? I don't think we need any more senior citizen housing in
that area. I think you are being unfair to the surrounding areas
where people have built $100,000 homes in there. It is not fair to
put in low cost housing. Let's be fair, this is low cost housing.
Let's not jam so much in one area and eventually end up with Herman
Gardens. We have to stop it. I do believe the area could go
residential with large lots, 70 foot minimum. Be fair to the
people around it. I would like to see it go back to RUF. Let's
not trade off half of a paving project for the entrance to our
City. If this was turned back into large lots, I would say that
the entrance to that property should come down Rayburn, which was
one of the first and probably the only real subdivision area in the
whole section. Everything else is RUF. We have maintained that
and we have fought for that. We went along with Madison School and
got them to put the State Police in there. It is a beautiful area
for any type of a surveillance area. Maybe the City of Livonia
should look at it. It is totally self contained and surrounded. I
am really sorry that Mr. Shapiro did not follow through on his
promise to improve that school and make it a part of the
convalescent home because we went along with that. I don't even
want R-1 truthfully. We have quite a traffic problem on Broadmoor.
We also have a lot of houses on Rayburn, which is a subdivision
street. Those are nice homes. They are still 70 foot lots, I
believe. Now we are going to take the kids playground so to speak.
How much can we take. We have this sewer thing that we are going
to have to fight along with promises to pave Harrison. I am
opposed to it. Leave it like it is until you get a better plan.
Brady Mangas, 28808 Rayburn: My concern is as for the houses, are they going to be
single level houses or two story?
Mr. Downes: Probably 1 and 2 story.
11277
Mr. Mangas: That is not going to conform with what is there now. How many
houses would you want to put in there?
Mr. Downes: Sixteen.
Sow Mr. Mangas: So you are looking at eight on each court? I live on Rayburn so
that means that everyone will be coming down Rayburn because
Roycroft is a dirt street. Everybody seems to be concerned about
Harrison. What about Rayburn? I am opposed to the whole thing.
Henry Kozyn, 28575 Broadmoor: I would like to react to a remark that Mr. Vyhnalek
made about the 2,000 senior citizens. Why is it that the City is
advertising in the Observer for applications for McNamara Towers?
Even apart from that, the R-9I that was approved a few years ago
was based on access to Five Mile Road. At that time I think it was
going to be developed in conjunction with the Unity Church on Five
Mile and at that time there was no need for 100% access to
Harrison. As soon as people who will be living on that property
find out that in order to go anyplace via Five Mile, they would
have to go through two traffic lights and several busy
intersections, they will change their mind and make a left hand
turn instead of a right hand turn and go north on Harrison and take
Broadmoor in order to get to Middlebelt. Broadmoor is a very
narrow street. It has been paved over three years ago. We are
still paying for it. Everyone can imagine what the additional
traffic would do to the pavement. Also there are no sidewalks.
Several new young families have moved in within the last year with
small children so that would pose a safety issue.
Marshall Belleperche, 15725 Harrison: This is directly south of that open property
+� on Harrison. This gentleman basically covered what I wanted to
remind everyone as fact. The OS and R-9I was approved only because
Mr. Shapiro was 100% certain the entrance was going to come from
Five Mile Road. That whole deal fell through but yet the zoning is
still there. When that was approved, there was no ingress or
egress from Harrison other than a breakway emergency barrier at the
time of approval and nothing on Rayburn or Roycroft. There was no
construction between my home on Harrison or my neighbor's to the
north. That was all open property on the original plans to get
this zoning. Everything was back. I really don't care to have a
lot more traffic on Harrison no matter how much the street is
improved. You have a lot of traffic now. I am very much opposed
to this petition.
Mr. Garland: I am in favor of senior citizen housing and if you could eliminate
them from building between my house and my neighbor's house, it is
the second best use I know of for the property. The best use is
residential. Please don't protect me from the existing zoning and
change it to condominiums.
Mr. Tent: Your description of senior citizens home did bother me because we
are not talking low cost housing. I would like to point out to you
places like Silver Village and that type. This is what I would
11278
consider, as one Commissioner, if we did consider senior citizen
housing. We are not talking about the ghetto type buildings. We
are talking about things that are compatible and does have some
distinction and it could be applicable to a neighborhood. It is
not a ghetto type of development because I wouldn't be part of
r anything like that.
Mr. Downes: May I respond to the feeling of the general public. It is
difficult to respond to all of these questions they have but when I
said that we felt this was a transitional, we mean the transitional
area from Five Mile where you have apartments and the OS and the
church and commercial and then beyond that property you have the
RUF so that would make this piece, the R-C, a transitional between
the OS, for example, and the RUF. The second point is that the
taking down of the Madison School is an extremely complicated and
complex situation because of the asbestos. Not only because of the
asbestos but because of the contamination which we know is already
there and may spread beyond what it is now. That means that it is
going to cost us approximately $320,000 to take that school down.
That is a large sum of money to pay out and then come in with a
development cost low enough to put in a single family subdivision
where the entire subdivision would be 60 units approximately. That
would put the range of the cost of the lots out of proportion with
the houses you would have to build there. With the R-C zoning
there we can put in approximately 65 thereabouts with approximately
6 to the acre and by spreading the $320,000 cost, we can bring the
cost down to have those condominiums sell for somewhere in the
neighborhood of $110,000 to $120,000. I don't think this is
disrupting the neighborhood as far as the general value of the rest
of the neighborhood is concerned. I think at this point if the
Commission has any more questions of me, it is difficult to answer
every possible question that was raised.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Downes, assuming both parcels, the OS and R-9I, was rezoned to
R-1, what is the total number of homes you could build there?
Mr. Downes: Approximately 60 based on further studies which we did.
Mr. LaPine: We would still have the same problem the neighbors are complaining
about. There would be an exit off Harrison plus we will have two
exits in the rear with either this plan or the other two plans you
have submitted.
Mr. Downes: I don't see how we could avoid that. We have to come off Harrison.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver, Vice
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-1-17 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-438-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-1-17 by Southwood Construction Co. ,
Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Harrison,
.r
11279
north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from R-9I and
OS to R-C and R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 90-8-1-17 be denied for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed changes of zoning will not provide for the best
combination of uses for the subject property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning to the R-C district will provide
for uses that are not in the best interests of the City and the
neighborhood.
3) That the proposed R-C zoning district will not provide for the type
of residential uses that have the greatest need in the community.
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. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-1-18 by Southwood Construction Co. , Inc. requesting to rezone
property located on the west side of Harrison, north of Five Mile Road
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from OS to R-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
.,� Mr. Nagy: We have received the same letters from the Engineering Department
and Allie F. Fayz on this petition as were read on the previous
petition. Detroit Edison has sent us a letter stating they have no
objection to this petition.
Mr. Kluver: If there is anything new, we would appreciate hearing it.
Mr. Downes: My remarks will be very brief. This is taking the OS to R-1 and
making it compatible to the neighborhood to our west.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Downes, your last proposal for R-1 was for 16 homes and this is
going to be for 27?
Mr. Downes: This would be 27.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Could you explain where the roads are?
Mr. Downes pointed this out on the map.
Mr. Morrow: It is extremely dangerous to look too much at site plans because as
we indicated earlier in the evening we are benefactors of R-9I and
OS because of a road that was going to go through Five Mile, which
apparently was never accomplished so to point where roads will be
is very dangerous.
Mr. Downes: Mr. Morrow you are correct. This is a solution. It might not be
the solution that is ultimately approved.
11280
Mrs. Cosgrove: Again, I think that is pushing a lot into a little piece of
property.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, what is the zoning directly west of this proposal that we
are looking at right now?
Mr. Nagy: R-.1, single family residential, that would permit lot sizes of 60
feet in width or larger.
Mrs. Fandrei: Exactly the same as the petition we are looking at now?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mrs. Fandrei: So it is compatible.
Mrs. Bruce: The lots on Broadmoor are RUF. The property on the far end of
Roycroft, I believe, is still RUF. I have a new concern. Madison
School has asbestos and we are going to build houses that close. I
think the problem should be eliminated first. We have had houses
come down in that Section 13 because they were health hazards. I
don't think Madison School is an exception. I think you should get
our health department on it and do what is necessary. If this was
changed to R-1, the plan looks good, I would do it on the basis of
that street being a part of the zoning. In other words, make him
conform to that street plan.
Mr. Kluver: We are dealing with zoning right now and we can't condition zoning.
The site plan will have to stand on its own when he comes back for
his plat approval. In essence what we are looking at here is R-1 a
good type of zoning for that particular area?
Mrs. Bruce: You can't make recommendations on the site plan at this point.
Mr. Kluver: Not at this point. We are strictly looking at the zoning and the
factors to be considered are why this should be rezoned from OS to
R-1 and that is the charge of this Commission tonight.
Mrs. Bruce: I feel safer leaving that OS. I feel the school has to come down
before we can make too many plans for that area.
Mr. Walker: I have to oppose this petition too only because it leaves the
property portion directly east of that as is and to do with as he
will. If this is approved, he can build his homes but it seems
like nothing will happen over there. He has every right to and
probably will put multi high-rise housing in there.
Mr. Kluver: That zoning is already there.
Mr. Walker: So to approve this would simply give him a stamp of approval to do
as he wants to the whole parcel, so I have to reject this for that
reason.
Mr. LaPine: I support this proposal over the previous proposal or over rezoning
all the property to the R-1 zoning classification for two reasons.
Number one, he has the zoning for the senior citizens housing.
11281
This proposal gives us an opportunity to take the real difficult
portion and make it into single family homes where the traffic from
those homes will go off Rayburn or Roycroft. The senior citizens
housing units' traffic from those units will go out to Harrison
which will help relieve some of the traffic problems. If you take
''err► it and make it all single family residential homes, the traffic
will go off either Harrison or Roycroft, all sixty homes, so the
people on Roycroft and Rayburn will get traffic from all the homes.
This way nobody is going to get all the traffic. I don't totally
agree with the site plan he showed tonight but no matter what goes
in there, there is going to be traffic. I think this is a solution
that not everybody is going to like but I think it is a solution
that could probably relieve everybody's fears that they are not
going to get hit with all the traffic. I think it is a good
proposal. We are only talking zoning now. When they come in with
the site plan, we may want to make changes. You will have an
opportunity to come back down and give us your input but I am in
favor of this proposal over the other two proposals.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to amplify what Bill said. This particular petition
is a downgrading from office use to a residential use. They could
start building the senior citizens units tomorrow if a proper site
plan was brought forward. I am in favor of this because I would
rather see residential in that area than some sort of office use.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-1-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
##9-439-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-1-18 by Southwood Construction Co. ,
Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Harrison,
north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from OS to
R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 90-8-1-18 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more affordable
single family residential homes in the community.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes and
housing that is compatible to adjacent development 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. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
11282
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-1-19 by Lendrum-Ronayne Development Co. requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Joy Road between Stonehouse and
Newburgh in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from R-7 to R-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
.r existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
the development of the area as single family homes will require
on-site detention of storm water runoff. They state the above
detention requirements are in accordance with a recent
Westland-City of Livonia agreement whereby storm water runoff from
this area of Livonia must be temporarily detained prior to
outletting to a storm sewer system in the City of Westland.
We have also received a letter from Dave Pink of Commonwealth
Enterprises, Inc. of Bel-Air, California, stating their company has
no objection to granting the zoning change but would like to see as
a condition that the developer be required to design the
subdivision with lots fronting on Stonehouse. He states they have
owned lots on Stonehouse for over 25 years but because of the
unavailability of a storm sewer to serve these lots he could not
develop the property. It appears the storm sewer problem is
nearing a resolution and they anticipate being able to develop in
the very near future and feel that aesthetically it would be better
for the property adjoining Stonehouse to be developed with lots
fronting on Stonehouse and it would also be economically more
feasible for both developers sharing the cost of the improvements.
We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they
have no objection to this petition.
Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner here?
Bill Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia: I am representing Mr. Ronayne and Mr.
Ledrum. I guess in thirty years this is the first time I stood in
front of a Planning Commission or Council and asked to have
something dezoned from a density of 102 condominiums to
approximately 56 residential lots. With that in mind I might best
turn it over to Mr. Ronayne.
Lou Ronayne, 16210 Hubbard, Livonia: My partner and I have owned this property for
the last couple of years and have been in front of this Commission
several times now with our condominium project. Over the last year
a lot of things have changed. The one big thing is we were able to
work out our storm sewer problem with Westland thanks to the help
of Gary Clark. They were very instrumental in working out that
problem and bringing a storm sewer at that end of the south end of
Livonia. Over the last two years the only changes we felt were
important were there has already been another condo project
approved to the north of us. That along with several other condo
projects at that end, we feel that the market has softened enough
that we didn't want to take a chance on that and we felt that after
11283
the success of our other project at Seven and Newburgh, that single
family residences in Livonia are very popular and a lot of people
seem to want to move to Livonia and that particular sub is on the
high end of the income market. This particular sub would be more
along the $130,000 price range, which I feel there is still a
strong need for in Livonia.
811,
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver, Vice
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-1-19 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#I9-440-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-1-19 by Lendrum-Ronayne Development
Co. requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road
between Stonehouse and Newburgh in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from
R-7 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 90-8-1-19 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the existing
zoning of the adjacent Golden Ridge Subdivision to the west.
3) That this section of the City is currently well served with the
type of uses permitted by the existing R-7 zoning on the subject
property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
41543, as amended.
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow: The gentleman from California who sent the letter, I would
appreciate the staff responding to him that we cannot condition
zoning as he has requested.
Mr. Tent: I would like to respond to Mr. Roskelly. This is really true.
This is the first time they have downgraded a zoning and I want to
compliment the developers for considering the R-1 zoning as opposed
to the R-7.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-1-20 by William L. Roskelly for Owen Cummings & Bernard McClorey
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Merriman Road
between Pembroke and Fargo in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA
to R-3.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
11284
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
the Master Thoroughfare Plan provides for an 86' wide right-of-way
for future Pembroke Avenue along the southerly limits of the
subject site. Therefore, an additional 13 feet of public
right-of-way must be considered along the southerly limits of the
site in connection with any future preliminary subdivision plat.
We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they
have no objection to this petition. We have also received a
petition signed by 95 residents and members of the North Central
Livonia Civic Association and neighbors stating they are against
the rezoning petition. They state the property is zoned RUFA and
should remain so. Rezoning would be damaging to their neighborhood
aesthetically and economically. They further state the community
would be irretrievably damaged by the proposed rezoning. Also in
our file is a letter from Clara Vincent of 20110 Merriman stating
her opposition to this petition.
Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner here?
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia: As the gentleman in the last piece
of correspondence indicated, you are not strangers to this parcel
of land. This would be a joint venture with Mr. Cummings and Mr.
McClorey, who have owned the land in excess of 15 years. I think
you are all cognizant of the fact that it does lie and have
frontage on a mile road, Merriman Road. The property is heavily
wooded. I would apologize because the gentleman said I was a bit
hoggish, and perhaps as a developer I was expecting a little too
much. Myself, Mr. Cummings, and Mr. McClorey accepted that very
graciously. We considered, because of the shape and configuration,
certainly we could not get two tiers of lots. We were somewhat
restricted so therfore we said well we could go into a PUD and get
"ate
a heavier density, which we are not attempting. Certainly we could
place 1/2 acre sites but again we want to build according to what
the market dictates in this specific area. We feel the necessity
to get approximately nine buildable 80 foot lots so we can
construct homes in the area of $130,000 to $150,000. I have taken
the liberty of giving you a preliminary plat. I think along with
zoning it is essential to realize that one of the points that was
so well taken at Council when the little boy said what is going to
happen to all the birds and animals. What I am suggesting is, if
the rezoning is permitted with the 80 foot lots, number one all but
three lots are within 500 square feet of being 1/2 acre. As I gaze
into your zoning map, to the east of this property and perhaps even
people who have signed this petition, many of those parcels are
less than a 1/2 acre of the RUF zoning requirement. In the past I
am sure you have experienced, and the Council has and the Board of
Appeals, where many people are continuously chopping up these RUF
parcels creating two sites, which are certainly not as large as the
ones I am trying to create. Therefore, I implore you and hope you
can go along with my petition. In addition to this because of the
depth we would preserve the rear 50 feet of woods.
11285
Linda Eushka, 19729 Merriman: I am the one that was rear ended in a car accident
at the time of the previous rezoning attempt. Since then another
resident down the street from me, who is building a house
adjacently across from this proposed street, has been rear ended.
We are in jeopardy on that street. We don't have safe passage
that we are entitled to on this street. Even if you put in five
lanes, we still are not going to be safe. I don't know where he
is getting Pembroke from. It is not there. His proposal is for
Pembroke to run across here next to Mr. Smith's property. That
is not a street but he is going to put that right across from us.
If he puts the bigger properties, we are going to have less
driveways and we are going to have less traffic. This whole area
over here is 1/2 acre. The subdivision is across the street. We
have the cluster homes to the north of us. We have the
apartments to the north. We have the apartments to the south of
us. We are overloaded with traffic. We don't need any more than
what we have and it is not safe.
Mr. Nagy: Since the lady brought up the question of Pembroke Avenue, perhaps
we should put the development plan on the display. Pembroke Avenue
is not being used in any way in connection with this development.
Mrs. Eushka: Where is the entrance and exit going to be?
Mr. Nagy: The reason it is on that map is the north one-half of the
right-of-way for Pembroke Avenue is already dedicated to the City
of Livonia. What we need is the south one-half to make it a
street. This development is not going to use Pembroke whatsoever.
Pembroke does not have to be constructed as a street for this
proposed development.
Mr. Shane pointed this out on the map.
Mrs. Eushka: Then I have no problem with this.
Dick Fetner, 31069 Fargo: I own property immediately east of the proposed
rezoning. It is my understanding that those three lots to my
immediate west are going to be 120 feet deep. The rest of the lots
will then be turned perpendicular and will face Merriman. My lot
is 300 feet deep. My setback is 130 feet from the road and I am
greatly concerned with what affect a 120 foot deep lot next to me
would have on my property. I would then have rear yards down the
balance of my 180 feet. I don't feel this is in keeping with the
types of homes in the area. I think this is a bit too much. When
I moved there I knew this property could be developed. I thought
the homes would be commensurate with the type that are in there. I
would greatly desire that you would deny this petition.
Catherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: I am a Director of the North Central Livonia
Civic Association. This really started to develop after the North
Central Livonia Civic Association, which is over 30 years old,
brought down an industrial plan and was turned down. The line was
to be held at 300 feet. This was in the late 1980's. The people
were drawn to the area because of the RUFA, 1/2 acre lots. Your
biggest investment is in your home. If they had wanted smaller,
they would have bought in a subdivision. One nice part of the area
is the homes are all different. We have some 1 1/2 acre lots. Mr.
11286
Roskelly knew when he bought it was RUFA, 1/2 acre lots. I don't
see why he should downgrade the area with spot zoning. He could
increase slightly the lot sizes on Merriman Road from six to seven,
making them maybe a little bit more than a 1/2 acre and this would
be more compatible to the area. It also would blend in better with
the homes on the north side of Fargo. It would make both sides of
the street even. We think this is the best idea for that lot. I
cannot see passing that for R-3.
Bob Smith, 19790 Merriman: My property is just to the south of this project. It
is slightly under an acre. As the young lady before said we bought
in there because it was 1/2 acres and we had a little bit of land.
When they bought that land, they knew. I could have bought that
land in 1970 but I didn't. I had my 1/2 acre for my retirement. I
have been out there for 20 years now. I feel when he bought that
land he knew what the zoning was. They are all 1/2 acres out there
and that is what these people bought and they put their homes up.
There isn't really anything that can be said. It should be kept at
the 1/2 acre. I feel that most of these 95 people that signed the
petition, they all feel the same way but I felt that being right
next to the property I should come up and say what I feel.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the R-3 on Fargo? Everybody says they are 1/2 acre lots.
There are seven lots rezoned less than 1/2 acre. .
Mr. Nagy: Those represent zoning classifications within that area right now
along Fargo. They are currently well established zoning districts.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How come everybody is saying everything is RUF and there is R-3? I
guess they don't know their neighborhood. I think the residents
are misinforming us by saying they are all 1/2 acre. They are not.
vew
Fred Janisse, 20060 Merriman: I am right across from the property. The three
residences would be abutting right into my driveway with
subdivision size lots. I feel it would take away from the value of
my home. I am going to have three lots across from me that are 80
x 130. I don't like that. I don't know if I can change it.
Norman Kaipio, 30867 Fargo: This is between the two R-3's. I don't know why they
have R-3 there. All those parcels in the R-3, except for the last
one on the east, are 100 foot frontage. I would be very opposed to
80 foot lots in this area because I know all of them on the street
are at least 100 foot wide except for the one that I mentioned.
Also, Mr. Roskelly is that your office on Schoolcraft?
Mr. Roskelly: It is my office.
Mr. Kluver: Obviously you don't support the petition.
Mr. Kaipio: Right. I wouldn't have any problem with 100 foot lots.
Maria Silverstone, 231061 Fargo: I have no problem with Merriman Road. I do have
a problem with Fargo. If you could put one house or two houses on
there as opposed to three, that would be fine.
11287
Mr. Kluver: You are in favor of the zoning.
Mrs. Silverstone: I am for the RUFA. I don't want it rezoned.
John Maxwell, 19985 Merriman: My property is right across the street from Fargo.
When I first moved to Livonia I used to see the bumper stickers "I
Love Livonia" and I thought what a great statement. I think that
is the spirit of community. It was my son that talked about the
birds and the animals going across the street after they were
evicted from the woods. I think his concern was more for people
because that could potentially cause an accident. This property is
on Merriman Road, which is a very well traveled highway as I am
sure many of us realize. When I try to pull out of my driveway, I
am sometimes almost broadsided by people trying to pass on the
right hand side of people trying to turn left onto Fargo. Now we
are talking the difference of seven driveways versus twelve. The
housing plan is not the issue but the rezoning will affect that. I
think demographically we are talking per household two or three
automobiles. That is a lot of additional traffic on Merriman Road.
We are talking about driveways right on Merriman Road. This is a
safety hazard. I am opposed to this rezoning. I would prefer it
stay zoned exactly as it is because I think otherwise it would be
unsafe. I understand the motivations. I think owning property is
a responsibility to our community.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Roskelly, if you were to develop this property as 1/2 acre
lots, how many homes could you get?
Mr. Roskelly: About five or six.
Mr. Tent: With your proposal you are talking nine homes. Would there really
be any hardship?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes sir. I sit on that side of the bench in Redford Township and I
understand certainly that economics should not enter into this but
unfortunately it does. I do not believe that Merriman Road, being
a mile road, and as so many of these people attested to the fact
that it is a very busy road, it is not the most desirable location
for single family homes. I think you would all agree. Again, I
will resort to the site plan because of the depth of these lots, I
can afford a berm in front, a very nice spacious front yard along
with either a loop driveway and/or a T turnaround so nobody is
backing onto Merriman Road. I feel we have other options. We
attempted the condominiums. We were denied. We still have a
cluster development that we could attempt. We could attempt a OS
for an office. We could attempt many things but in all fairness
and as I stand in front of all you people, you all know that
anything I do in this town and I make a commitment I will live by
and I honestly believe and sincerely believe and I humbly request
that I would like the nine sites and I think it would be compatible
to the area.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Roskelly, the price of the homes, the nine lots versus the six
lots. How much difference are we talking in the home price?
Mr. Roskelly: We are getting into economics.
4.
11288
Mr. Kluver: We are dealing with a rezoning issue. The chair is going to rule
we are not interested in the prices and we are not interested in
the economics. We are looking at a simple issue and the charge of
this Commission is to look at the rezoning from RUFA to R-3.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Roskelly, I am slightly offended in the way you put it but I am
sure you didn't mean it that way that you are threatening the
Commission with other projects. I understand what you are saying
is that you did try to find a reasonable compromise.
Mr. Roskelly: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: What you are proposing, everyone has property and paying taxes on
it and they are entitled to receive the benefit of the land as well
so we are trying to work within the RUFA district that you are
basically in. I understand the lots going across Merriman Road and
your reasoning for it. The only question I have for you is
although we can't condition zoning, we do respect you as a person
who has built here many times and we take you at your word. If you
would go to two lots possibly on Fargo, that would create a wider
setback for those two homes on Fargo and give you eight instead of
nine. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Roskelly: I will, at this point, make that commitment. We are still under
the 1/2 acre and this is where it necessitates to have the R-3.
Along with that, this is going to be a recorded plat because it is
over four splits so I will have to report back to this board with
my preliminary and final plat and I will at this point say yes we
will accept eight parcels but they would be facing Fargo.
James Muir, 20200 Shadyside: I am President of the North Central Civic
Association. I think possibly one of the concerns I heard raised,
Mr. McCann has addressed. I think that particular possible
compromise would be more in keeping with what would satisfy the
residents in the area. I have a question by way of background. It
looks to me like there has been a lot of spot zoning here and I am
wondering if those R-3 lots, particularly the three that sit in a
row, is the same property owner of record. I have seen a lot of
this over the last 25 years where people have requested to have
their lots subdivided for the anticipated use of the future and it
has never come about and that doesn't necessarily set a precedent
that the rest of this does not conform. I do object to the line of
reasoning that states that because that is there, it looks like the
general characteristic of the neighborhood and one or two people
may have individually petitioned and I think that has to be
considered in your evaluation.
John Glatfelter, 19743 Merriman Ct. : In effect this gentleman has said that
Merriman Road was not a racetrack. We have had people killed,
young kids going to school have been killed on Merriman Road. We
have people passing on the right which have literally hit the side
of cars, literally passed the school bus at Fairfax and Merriman
Road. They have gone around the school bus almost hitting
children. It is a racetrack and it is a bad situation.
11289
Therefore, I am objecting to this. I was for it until he got up
and talked about the speed and stuff. I maintain that he should
stay with the RUF, 1/2 acre lots.
Catherine Sullivan: Mr. Roskelly owns 600 feet along Merriman Road. If he would
divide that into seven, it would make his lots about 85 feet wide
and that would be conforming with the RUF and I think this is a
better use of the land to stick to the RUF.
Mr. Morrow: With the latest concession Mr. Roskelly indicated he would bring
forth, what would be the zoning classification:
Mr. Roskelly: It would still have to be R-3 because the two lots that would be
fronting on Fargo would still not comply or be near the half acre.
Mr. Morrow: I think there were 95 neighbors that signed that petition. I
wonder if John might read that portion because I will probably vote
in favor of this with the downsizing and what was it about the R-3?
Mr. Nagy: "The community would be irretrievably damaged by the proposed
rezoning."
Mr. Morrow: As one Commissioner I am going to reject that because I think the
backbone of Livonia is R-3 and we certainly all have our own
individual homes and you certainly have every right to voice those
concerns and it might not be as compatible as you may think but to
me that is a little bit strong because we do have some R-1 there
and we do have some filtration of the R-3 in there and I think he
has a very tenuous piece of property and the way he indicates he
would develop it, I just think that is a little bit too strong in
`t.. that petition and as one Commissioner I just can't accept that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-1-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-441-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
90-8-1-20 by William L. Roskelly for Owen Cummings & Bernard McClorey
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Merriman Road
between Pembroke and Fargo in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA
to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 90-8-1-20 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes that
are compatible with those in the surrounding area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan.
11290
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. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-2-25 by Papa Romano's Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
establish a sit-down restaurant by expanding and adding seating to an
existing carry-out pizzeria located within the Laurel Commons Shopping
Center on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and
Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8.
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 Traffic Bureau stating this
proposal as submitted is satisfactory. We have also received a
letter from the Division of Fire stating they have no objection to
this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Engineering
Department stating their department has no objections to the
petition. We have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. The parking lot is in poor condition with many holes and much
trash and debris. Lastly, we have received a letter from Detroit
Edison stating they have no objection to this petition.
Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner present:
Suzanne Hancock, 17263 Cole Drive, Northville: I am here tonight as a
r. representative of Papa Romano's, Inc. in there petition to expand
their carry-out location at 37112 Six Mile Road to a sit-down
restaurant with approximate seating for 60 people. We would accept
seating for as low as 35 people. We have been operating at this
location for over six years. We have three other locations in
Livonia. We are very active in the community in such fund raisers
as the Livonia Spree and the Fall Fest. We would like this
location to be a flagship store for our company and we intend it to
remain a family operation and we will not be requesting a liquor
license in the future.
Mr. LaPine: Are you the operator or are you the attorney representing them?
Ms. Hancock: I am Vice President of Papa Romano's. It is a family business.
Mr. LaPine: Papa Romano's is throughout the metropolitan area, are they not?
Ms. Hancock: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Is this the first Papa Romano's that has asked to go to a full
service sit-down restaurant?
Ms. Hancock: No, we have two others.
11291
Mr. LaPine: Where are they located?
Ms. Hancock: One in Ann Arbor and one in Southfield.
Mr. LaPine: Why do you have to go to a sit-down restaurant? You have been
operating for years as a carry-out restaurant. What is the
`, reasoning behind this?
Ms. Hancock: Livonia is a growing area and we would like to have a really nice
store to represent our company in that area.
Mr. LaPine: I am confused about one thing. Your original plan was asking for
60 seats but you say you can operate with 35. Isn't there a break
even point whereby if you don't have x number of seats, you won't
he able to make a profit? Is 35 the break even point?
Ms. Hancock: Yes we want this location not so much for profit but to have a
really nice store to represent our company.
Mr. LaPine: What is going to happen to the Express Photo next door? When I was
out there Saturday, they looked like they were a very growing
business. Are they just going out of business or is the landlord
kicking them out so you can get the additional space?
Ms. Hancock: The landlord contacted us to see if we were interested in the
space.
Mr. Tent: Ms. Hancock, did you do a market study there to determine whether
you could be a viable restaurant or is this just a whim?
Ms. Hancock: We feel we can do it. That area is a growing area. It would be
Nor. mostly lunch business that we would be going after.
Mr. Tent: Are you aware there are 18 restaurants in that general area? There
are pizza places and there are so many restaurants of a similar
nature that supply the same service.
Ms. Hancock: We do a very big daytime delivery to offices.
Mr. Tent: I am just asking you if you have made a study to say yes this is a
viable location and we are going to drive the other people out of
business because we are better than anyone else.
Ms. Hancock: We are not trying to drive anybody out of business.
Mr. Tent: This is my concern because there are so many restaurants in the
City right now. I am concerned at that location there are several
restaurants and even the Inspection Department indicated the
parking lot was full of trash and debris and you are a participant
in that location. We are just adding more debris by adding more of
this type of service.
Dan Morelli, 33333 Wormer, Waterford, Michigan: I am General Manager of Papa
Romano's. The reason why we know it will work is that restaurant
11292
right now is basically at its max. We can't handle any more
business because we don't have the space. If we had a sit-down,
especially for lunch, most of that trash that is being carried out
in the parking lot, people are going to sit down and eat and not
take it out in the parking lot and eat in their car. That is what
is happening right now. They are taking it out in the parking lot
and eating in their car and throwing it out the window and throwing
it away. We know it will work because right now we are at our max.
People are waiting in line at lunch.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The other restaurants in the area in that particular shopping
center are the Japanese Restaurant which has 135 seats and James
Roast Beef with 60 seats. Mr. Nagy, how is the parking situation
going to be with this between 60 and 35 more seats?
Mr. Nagy: They will meet the off-street parking requirements. The parking
for this shopping center was based upon a group commercial
classification and the restaurant uses were factored into the
original quotient for off-street parking.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It still bothers me what Mr. LaPine mentioned about the Express
Photo. I happen to be a customers of both Papa Romano's and
Express Photo and I feel he has been there five years and he is a
business man in Livonia. Is the shopping center owner going to
replace him in the center?
Ms. Hancock: That was our understanding.
Thomas Jones, 5668 Perry, Westland: I own James Roast Beef Restaurant directly
next door to this. There is a tremendous parking problem there.
There is only one access to the center there. The parking is in
poor repair because the semi trucks cannot make that turn so they
are going the other way. That is wrecking the parking lot. Papa
Romano's directly competes with me. They serve salads and
sandwiches and when they were a delivery business it wasn't a big
factor but now they are going to be directly next door to me and
directly competing with me and there is limited parking space. I
am opposed to it and by the way John is being forced out of the
center. He is not relocating.
Mrs. Fandrei: I also frequent this center and I am aware of the parking problems
that are already there. I am afraid that having another restaurant
is going to make this a little bit more of a serious problem. I am
very concerned because when we give waiver use approval it goes
with the land and in my opinion three sit-down restaurants in one
small strip is a little overburdening the strip. I am happy to
hear that our petitioner has such a successful business. I would
like to grant them an extension but in this particular location I
don't think it is the place for it.
John Kempskey: I wasn't going to speak tonight but since members of the board did
support us, I want to say thank you. We had been in attempts with
Nelson-Ross to negotiate a lease but haven't been successful.
11293
Mr. Morrow: Could I ask you sir what might have prompted the landland to
solicit Papa Romano's to take over your space? Do you pay less
rent? What would cause something like this?
Mr. Kempskey: I really don't know. I have tried to find out what it is but I
don't know. We have fought him on a couple of items as far as
Now. maintenance overcharges.
Mr. Gniewek: To the staff, who is the actual owner of the mall?
Mr. Nagy: It is owned by a development company called Nelson-Ross.
Mr. Morelli: It is our understanding that Nelson-Ross, for some reason of their
own, has no intention of renewing his lease. That is the reason
why they contacted us. I don't think it makes a difference if we
go there or not. Whenever his lease is up, he is not going to be
there. We feel sorry for him. We have done business with him
also. I don't know what really happened between them, that is
between them, but to think that we are pushing him out the door
isn't the case. Something happened between those two and that is
the reason why they are leaving. It has nothing to do with us.
The Roast Beef shop, he does business during the day. We were
there before he was. When he came into that place he knew we were
there. Competition is good for people. I don't think three
restaursants is going to make that much of a difference, if there
is enough parking for everybody. This gentleman says there is.
That is the reason we are flexible with the seating, just in case
there was a problem with the parking. What we would like to do, we
would like to give our customers the option that if they want to
eat there, they have a place to eat. We believe that is hampering
our business because we don't have a place where they can sit down
and eat. There are so many people here at lunch time, especially
in that area of Haggerty Road that is so developed. There are more
people here for lunch than there are for dinner so there will not
be a parking problem at dinner time. Our main concern is during
the lunch period. That is when we don't feel we are servicing our
customers to the best of our ability because we don't have the
seating. We are losing people to Max & Irma's, the Roast Beef
Shop, Bill Knapps, etc. because we don't have seating. That is
what we are interested in.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have you invite Mr. Nelson Ross up
front and let him identify what the problem is. The thing that
concerns me is with the Photo Express where he indicated they had
some differences of opinion. He might be able to address what his
problem is.
Mr. Kluver: We are dealing with the waiver use issue and will handle the issue
as it is presented by the petition. Any questions relative to the
waiver use pro or con will be discussed openly at this meeting,
something that is relative to why it should be granted or why it
should not be granted. I don't see any reason to bring the
developer into the conversation at this time.
11294
Mr. Morrow: I have absolutely nothing against Papa Romano's. Where I am coming
from, as Mrs. Fandrei said earlier, for a center that size to be
granted 60 or 35 additional seats would probably be more restaurant
seating per square foot than any center we have in Livonia and that
is my point. I just can't be in favor of granting a waiver for a
restaurant in that center for more seats.
Mr. Morelli: Are you flexible there? What about 18 seats. We need the space
anyways even if we can't put seating there. If the space is
available, we would still be interested and just make it all take
out.
Mr. Morrow: We have no control over that. That is between you and your
landlord. The only thing we are looking at here tonight is the
sit-down restaurant. We have heard some of the concerns, even
though it meets the off-street parking, so far as at the peak times
there are some parking problems. It is not the easiest thing to do
is to get restaurants in Livonia but to put three in the same
center is just too much. If you look across the street, the size
of Laurel Park, you have only three or four more restaurants and
literally millions of square feet to service that large regional
type shopping center. I am sure being a Livonia company you might
be able to find a site more suitable for a sit-down restaurant but
that is just too intense, in one man's opinion.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver, Vice
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-2-25 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
it was
#9-442-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-2-25 by Papa Romano's Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to establish a sit-down restaurant by
expanding and adding seating to an existing carry-out pizzeria located
within the Laurel Commons Shopping Center on the north side of Six Mile
Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 90-8-2-25 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 would overburden the Laurel Commons Shopping
Center because of the increased vehicular traffic load that it
would create.
3) That the subject area is currently well served with a variety of
eating establishments as evidenced by a recent survey which reveals
that there are 18 eating establishments located within
approximately one mile of the subject site.
11295
4) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-2-26 by Kamp-DiComo Associates-Armstrong Buick/Isuzu requesting
waiver use approval to construct an addition to the showroom and parts
department of an existing automobile dealership located on the northeast
corner of Sears Avenue and Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
26.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received letters from the Division of Fire, Traffic Bureau
and Engineering all stating their departments have no objections to
this proposal. We have also received a letter from Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were
found. A letter from Detroit Edison states they have no objection
to this petition. We have also received a letter from Dale L.
Davis of the Cinemark USA, Inc. stating they have no complaint
regarding the requested change as the adjoining property owner.
Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner present?
Dan DiComo, 15875 Middlebelt: I am representing Kamp-DiComo Associates. The
proposed addition to the dealership is a 16 foot wide by
approximately 100 foot long addition, which would go around the
west side of the building. It would proceed no further south
towards the street than is on the west side of the building. The
reason for the addition is Armstrong Buick has acquired an Isuzu
dealership and Isuzu has requested a separate amount of space to
display their cars indoors.
Mr. LaPine: At our prehearing a discussion came up about additional signage.
Are there any plans of having any additional signage at that
location?
Mr. DiComo: Armstrong Buick has hired a sign company, through Isuzu, to do an
inventory of their present signage and to make a suggestion for the
type of signage that would be proposed for Isuzu. Right now Isuzu
and the owner, Armstrong Buick, are going to propose a 4 foot by 4
foot Isuzu sign with a 2 foot pedestal, which would make it 6 feet
overall in height. The Isuzu sign would be the Isuzu logo with the
word Isuzu on it and they would have to go before the Zoning Board
of Appeals in order to get that sign granted.
Mr. LaPine: This is going to be a free-standing sign?
11296
Mr. DiComo: It would be a free-standing sign at this point projected to be
located somewhere between the free-standing Armstrong Buick sign
and the sidewalk, which is in their existing front yard setback on
the south side of the property.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, what is the zoning of this property?
Mr. Nagy: C-2, general commercial.
Mrs. Fandrei: Is barbed wire allowed on this property?
Mr. Nagy: No it is not.
Mrs. Fandrei: The back storage area is surrounded by barbed wire and since it
isn't allowed on this property, I would request of the petitioner
that it be removed as we have requested from other dealerships. I
understand why it is there but it isn't allowed under the zoning.
I do want to comment that this is one of the nicer looking
dealerships that we have in the City. It is kept up very well and
shows quite a pride of ownership. I am very proud to have it in
the City but back to the barbed wire. I feel that has to go.
Mr. DiComo: I will mention both things to Armstrong Buick.
Mr. Gniewek: Would it be proper to speak at this time to any type of window
signage that would occur at the new site? Is there any limit to
any type of window signage in the new section of this petition? Is
there any limitation already existing at that site by the Zoning
Board of Appeals? Would we speak to limiting it to 25% as we
normally would at this point?
Mr. Kluver: I believe they are limited to 25% but you certainly may speak to
�. i t.
Mr. Gniewek: There will be additional window area there and there is a tendency
to utilize window areas in any type of dealership and I would just
like to speak to it and maybe make it a part of the conditions that
we would limit it to 25%.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver, Vice
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-2-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved,
#9-443-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-2-26 by Kamp-DiComo
Associates-Armstrong Buick/Isuzu requesting waiver use approval to
construct an addition to the showroom and parts department of an
existing automobile dealership located on the northeast corner of Sears
Avenue and Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 90-8-2-26 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 8-10-90 prepared by
Kamp-DiComo Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to.
11297
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated 8-10-90
prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, Architects, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
3) That any new signs proposed to be erected shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their approval prior to
Nilo" the issuance of a Sign Erection Permit.
4) That the barbed wire attached to the chain link fence shall be
removed from the property;
5) That the window signage shall be restricted to 25% of the window
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. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-2-27 by Angelo D'Orazio requesting waiver use approval to operate a
limited service restaurant (Polo Yogurt Cafe) within the Stamford Plaza
Shopping Center located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between
Myron & Whitby Streets in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9.
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 Traffic Bureau stating no
unusual problems are anticipated at this time. We have also
`"r received letters from Division of Fire and Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this proposal. We have received
a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the
following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. There are two
illegal banners and one illegal ground sign on the site. Lastly,
we have received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to this petition.
Angelo D'Orazio, 35213 Vargo: We would like our business to survive.
Mr. Tent: Is this business up for sale?
Mr. D'Orazio: At this point, not yet. If this is approved, I don't know.
Mr. Tent: The reason I was concerned, if we grant a waiver use and the
property is sold, then whoever buys the property they have a
restaurant and we have a restaurant there forever. It would go
with the waiver use. You are saying the reason you want this
waiver use is so the business can survive and so whoever owns it
now can make a living but if he is going to sell it, then perhaps
someone else might go in there.
11298
Mr. D'Orazio: I don't know if he is going to sell or what at this point right
now.
Mr. Vyhnalek: He only wants 24 seats? He could get 30 is that correct? There is
not any other restaurant in the area like this. This is the only
one. The restaurants across the street have been closed down.
.. This is the only one in the area.
Mr. LaPine: I am opposed to it. I was opposed to the C-2 zoning there. That
was spot zoning. I think it was wrong. I don't think we should
change our position. There are three yogurt cafes within a mile of
that area. We have this one. There is one at Seven Mile and
Newburgh and you have one at Eight Mile at the new shopping center.
In my opinion none of them are going to make it. All we are doing
is creating a problem. We are going to have a waiver use under
which any restaurant can come in there and operate. Therefore, I
am opposed to it and I urge the Commission members to vote against
it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-2-27 closed.
Mr. McCann left the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#9-444-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-2-27 by Angelo D'Orazio requesting
waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Polo Yogurt
Cafe) within the Stamford Plaza Shopping Center located on the south
side of Seven Mile Road between Myron & Whitby Streets in the Northeast
1/4 of Section, the City Planning Department does hereby recommend to
'4411"' the City Council that Petition 90-8-2-27 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 this area of the City is currently well served with a variety
of eating establishments as evidenced by a recent survey which
reveals that there are 16 eating establishments located within
approximately one mile of the subject site.
3) That the proposed use will be detrimental to and not 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Fandrei, Gniewek, LaPine, Tent
NAYS: Morrow, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: McCann, Engebretson
a..
11299
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-2-28 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 between I-96 and Plymouth Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 26.
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
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Division of Fire stating they have no
objection to this proposal.
The Traffic Bureau has sent a letter indicating the proposal should
be satisfactory provided the drive area from the front of the store
to Schoolcraft is properly marked so as to channel vehicle traffic.
They do recommend since Island "E" projects into the route traffic
travels that high visibility posts be installed on the northwest
and northeast corners to alert drivers. They state these should be
at least four feet in height and could be four inch pylons with
barber pole type striping in yellow and black or similar
contrasting colors.
We have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating
the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. An agreement
was reached between this Department and Forest City, whereby the
fenced in area was expanded in exchange for serveral thousand of
dollars worth of sprinkler repairs caused by the City installing
`r► sidewalks at this site. 2. The front door area, under the canopy
is currently being used for the sale of shrubs.
Lastly, we have received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they
have no objection to this petition.
Mr. McCann returned to the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner here?
Chris Wright, 8177 Gary Lane, Westland: I am the store manager for the Handy Andy
store location on Middlebelt. We are requesting this waiver for
use of these areas in order to satisfy seasonal consumer demands.
I understand the Commission's desires as far as the markers for the
locations mentioned and would abide by those requests.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Wright, the farthest area that you have designated away from
the store against the property line, what would that be utilized
for and why is that needed so far from the store?
Mr. Wright: The waiver request mentions sales. We are requesting to do sales
outside the location. There are sales that do take place in that
11300
area but that is most generally an overstock position for dirt. We
sell approximately 200 pallets of topsoil over a weekend. It is
difficult to satisfy that much demand and store it inside. That
area there is completely out of traffic. It is stored against the
grass area underneath trees away from any driveway. That is why it
is put there. We do on occasions retrieve merchandise from that
area for customers but generally it is for those large weekend
Nor
orders. Definitely storage but there is not a lot of traffic back
there. I would prefer not to have to do business back there.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Wright, presently in front of one half of the building you have
shed buildings. Do you intend to keep those there, because that is
the entrance to your establishment?
Mr. Wright: We have three buildings out front. I would like to keep those
there but if the Commission desires I could use the areas that we
requested in front of the garden shop to display those.
Mr. Tent: And the shrubs?
Mr. Wright: The shrubs are seasonal and they can be taken out this evening. I
was not aware that underneath the canopy was considered outside
sales.
Mr. Tent: Along with this are you planning any other renovations in the front
of the building? Anything to enhance it?
Mr. Wright: Apparently we are planning a remodel for that location. The
remodel is to start on the first and it is to be mostly inside the
building. The facing across the front where there are wood shakes
that you see now that are weathered, are to be replaced. The
exterior of the building is to be painted. I have a blueprint but
I guess I will believe it when I see someone pulling through the
front of the store with a bulldozer, but yes it is in the works.
Mr. Gniewek: To the staff, everything mentioned in this says expanded use. How
much is presently there and how much are we expanding it?
Mr. Nagy: Those dimensions that are shown on the site plan represents what
was approved. The staff has not made those calculations as we are
hearing this petition for the first time with the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Gniewek: You don't have any idea how many square feet they presently have
for storage and how many square feet they are asking for? I would
like to have some sort of a figure as far as square feet. It looks
to me like we have some information here we haven't really
discussed.
Mr. Nagy: We will be happy to furnish that information to you.
Mr. Kluver: Would you like to have that information Mr. Gniewek?
Mr. Gniewek: Yes I would.
Mr. LaPine: John, I would like to know what they were granted when they built
11301
the building, what they were given for the $6,000 and what they are
asking for now. I would like to know all three. I would like to
know what was originally given to Forest City or Handy Andy and
when the sprinklers were ruined they were given some additional
sales space. How much more were they given at that time and what
are they asking for now?
Mr. Morrow: I would like to ask the petitioner, is that not currently called
Forest City?
Mr. Wright: Yes sir. Forest City owns the land. It was purchased by Handy
Andy approximately three years ago and operates as Handy Andy's
Forest City.
Mr. Morrow: In other words, you manage the whole complex there?
Mr. Wright: I manage the Handy Andy store. I manage the retail building store.
Mr. Morrow: Not the F & M?
Mr. Wright: No sir.
Mr. Morrow: Those are the only two businesses we have there outside of the gas
station in the front?
Mr. Wright: Yes sir.
Mr. Morrow: It seems like that shopping center has prospered since I have lived
in the City and I haven't seen a great deal of money going back
into keeping the site looking as nice as it might. I just want to
go on record that any type of approval would certainly require some
upgrading of the parking lot, the building and some of the amenties
`goy around the site.
Mr. Wright: In the course of the last three months portions of the parking lot
have been repaved. There has been landscaping that has brought the
appearance of the exterior of the building up to par. The remodel
is a positive step and I can't stand here and say that is going to
be 100% for sure. Those decisions are yet to be made. I think
that would be a positive thing for the exterior and interior of the
building. The company has been in this City for 20 years and they
have eight Detroit locations and they are involved in community
activities and community services.
Mr. Kluver: John, there was a question raised by Mr. Gniewek regarding the
difference in square footage. Are we in a position to give any
kind of a technical answer logistically to that question or can we
give percentages or is that information not available at this time?
Mr. Nagy: We will have to compute that. It is not available at this time.
We need time to study the matter.
Mr. Gniewek: I wish to table this petition at this particular time for further
discussion and further information from the staff.
11302
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-2-28 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
##9-445-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-2-28 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 between I-96
and Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-8-2-28 to the
study meeting of September 25, 1990.
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. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-2-29 by Vicki & Ramon Castaneda requesting waiver use approval to
utilize a Class C Liquor License in conjunction with an existing
restaurant (Old Mexico Restaurant) located on the southwest corner of
Five Mile Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27.
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 the waiver use proposal. We have
N'► also received a letter from the Division of Fire stating they have
no objections to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from
Allie F. Fayz of Harrison Square Plaza stating the request by the
Castaneda's for approval of a Class C liquor license is agreeable
with him. He states it should increase business for them. Also in
our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal
is acceptable. They do note that no dumpster is indicated on the
plan and that this might affect the parking plan.
Vicki Castaneda, 38380 Mallory Dr. : We have been there since 1975 and we have been
in business since 1971. Before that we had a restaurant at Grand
River and Lahser. We had that for 13 years, which we just sold
five years ago. There has been a period of time when we had two.
In 1975 we opened up in Livonia and we were just a carry-out but we
just can't make it with Mexican food because it gets too cold too
fast and it is not good cold. Now we are a sit down. We have been
a sit down for 13 years and times are rougher business wise and you
just can't compete because they are starting to walk out the door
if they can't get something. They think mexican beer goes with
tacos just like spaghetti goes with meatballs. With prices and
everything it is just a financial burden and we just can't keep
going on like this with our increases in prices, with the minimum
11303
wage, with workmens comp, etc. We can't compete. It is so small
up against a Chi Chi's. We are there to stay. We own the
building. We have had a place in West Bloomfield now for three
years and still kept that. We got a liquor license there in March
and there is a night and day difference in our business. They used
to walk out the door and now they stay. There is no over drinking.
We are not going to extend the hours.
Mr. LaPine: Is this the first time you tried to get a liquor license?
Mrs. Castaneda: Yes it is the first time. We thought about it before. We got
information from Mr. Nagy years ago and different people that were
on the committee but we really didn't see the need for it.
Mr. LaPine: I was out there Saturday afternoon about 3:00. It is my
understanding you are going to expand the business and take over
the beauty shop area.
Mrs. Castaneda: That is my building.
Mr. LaPine: You are going to expand. On the east side of the building where
the beauty shop is, there is a door into the beauty shop and there
are glass windows. Are you going to do any renovations on any of
that?
Mrs. Castaneda: Yes we would have to.
Mr. LaPine: I have no problem with your requesting that but I noticed a number
of problems on the west side of the building when I was out there.
You have a mural that is all falling down. Your equipment on top
of the roof is visible. The parking lot is in bad shape. The
dumpster sticks out like a sore thumb. I want to be assured that
`r•► all of these things are going to be taken care of. As far as using
the additional parking, I was there at 3:00 in the afternoon and
there were 17 cars in the parking lot so maybe at certain times of
the week that parking lot is full but I don't really see any
problem. I want to know what is going to happen to the building.
Ramon Castaneda: What we plan to do is to make a little wall a little higher and
put new equipment on the top so all you need is a new fan to take
out the smoke. All of that is going to be brand new. Also there
is going to be a little wall built up so you don't see all the
equipment like the air conditioner, etc. We are also going to take
care of the wall outside so you don't see some of the plaster. In
the back we plan to make the kitchen so that will leave the same
parking spots we are going to reuse for employees and 17 parking
spots for the customers. We are also going to have a walk-in
cooler so we don't have to ask the people next door. So we will
have 24 seats. We don't have to use the parking lot next door.
Mr. Morrow: All the things you just said, do they appear on the plan anywhere?
Mr. Castaneda: Ralph has them.
Mr. Vyhnalek: They wanted 46. Are they going to settle for 24?
w..
11304
Mr. Nagy: The expanded restaurant into the beauty shop area represents an
expansion of a restaurant. That is subject to a waiver use
approval. The petition they filed for you tonight is limited to a
Class C liquor license. Whether or not the property, from a zoning
standpoint, is or should not be used for the sale of liquor by the
glass. They will have to come back with another petition that will
deal solely with the seating capacity, the expanded seating
capacity, off-street parking requirements, landscape requirements.
So while the two tend to go together like spaghetti and meatballs,
they didn't file the spaghetti with the meatballs, they filed only
for the Class C liquor license. You are trying to deal with both
but both are not before you.
Mr. Morrow: We should use every opportunity to at least achieve some of these
things that Mr. LaPine indicated. There is some work that needs to
be done on the building whether on this petition or an enlargement
petition. Like Mr. Nagy said it almost should go together as
opposed to two different petitions. As we found about the first
two items tonight, it is hard to talk about one and not the other.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mrs. Castaneda, you mentioned this was the first time you
requested a Class C liquor license. Our notes indicate it is the
third time since 1982. The first time it was denied by the
Planning Commission and the second time it was tabled.
Mr. Castaneda: We applied for seating because it was different zoning but not for
a liquor license.
Mrs. Fandrei: According to our staff of professionals, this is the third time.
Mrs. Castaneda: We spoke to different people about it but we never came before the
board.
Mr. Nagy: City records will show that in 1982 the petition we identified as
Petition 82-11-2-36 was in fact filed and they paid a filing fee
and signed the application for a Class C liquor license and it was
denied and not appealed. Later, there was a second petition for a
joint petition for a Class C liquor license and seating expansion
for the restaurant and because there were insufficient plans, the
petition was never processed. They did submit a second petition
for an expanded restaurant and Class C liquor license but it never
went forward because you couldn't meet the various requirements.
Mrs. Castaneda: We never went to the board.
Mr. Nagy: In 1982 there was a petition that was dealt with by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. LaPine: I would like to table this and dovetail it with the expansion of
the restaurant. As far as I am concerned, it is contingent upon
how they are going to fix up the restaurant expansion plans and how
they are going to fix the parking lot because to give them a liquor
license they could continue to operate the way they are. If the
two things were dovetailed together I might be able to give it some
consideration.
11305
Mrs. Robert Ostander, 15400 Harrison: About three houses north of the corner of
Five Mile and Harrison. While I feel for these people and their
problems, I am opposed to drinking and on that basis alone I am
opposed to granting them a license for drinking purposes.
Mary Artrip, 15131 Harrison: I live about five houses south. Although some of the
41111. things I was going to argue with have been brought to our
attention, the City sidewalk east of the restaurant is littered
with boxes, cans, garden hose, plastic bags, etc. Tonight my son
went for a bike ride and he couldn't get past the sidewalk because
of the debris on the sidewalk. On at least three different
occasions we have stopped to ask to speak with the manager and
were told the manager is not here. If this business is not able to
abide by a simple ordinance such as keeping the public sidewalk
clear, how can they possibly handle a Class C liquor license? I
oppose Petition 90-8-2-29.
Lillian Edney, 15405 Harrison: The petition didn't mention enlarging the
restaurant. Several people would have been here had they known
that. The restaurant is not in the shopping center. It is on the
corner. Quite often when traffic travelling east on Five Mile is
going to make a left turn at the light, someone who is going to
enter the restaurants comes through the light and they are also in
the left turn lane rather than turning on Harrison. When drinks
are available, it just seems people seem to linger longer. I feel
a strip mall in a residential neighborhood is not the place to be
serving liquor.
Gary Garland: I don't believe this would immediately affect me personally but the
lady who spoke before made a point. The people can't even figure
how to get into that restaurant and they come straight at you when
you are turning off Five Mile Road. I have never seen where there
*41m' is any place for someone to park. We had a similar situation a
number of years where they were going to build a family restaurant
on the corner of Middlebelt and Broadmoor and they built that
family restaurant and got their liquor license and sold it and I
believe it is now the Nag's Head and it is not a family restaurant.
It is a bar.
Mrs. Bruce: Within a mile of me is Mr. Z's. That is almost an all night bar at
Inkster and Five Mile. Coming the other direction, this is our
door to Livonia, there is a gas station that is already expanded.
I have fought gas stations around my corner for several years. We
have 11. Now we have two that are closing within that area and
another was torn down. Now we are replacing those with restaurants
and liquor serving bars. Nag's Head is a nice establishment except
they took the left hand turn sign down. I got the drinking age
changed to 21 in my dining room. I hate this location for a bar.
It doesn't belong in the middle of a neighborhood. I see this as
being open until 2:00 in the morning. I see it attracting the
racetrack personnel. We have the Stables on Middlebelt. We have a
carry-out winery on Five Mile. We have Lebordeaux. We have about
6 Class C liquor licenses within a mile. It also emcompasses
Middlebelt and Five Mile. I worked very hard to make Middlebelt
very nice with the businesses and the convalescent home and the
11306
retirement home and my square mile between Five Mile and Six Mile
is a little bit better than most along Middlebelt. I would sure
hate to see some of this start coming in now on Five Mile. I am
still on that border. I am opposed to it. Yes I am across the
street but it is the beginning of a bad strip. We have to be
careful. We have a lot of zoning that is going to be C-2 from
Inkster to Middlebelt that we haven't even dealt with yet so let's
be careful what we do here. I oppose the Class C license. Also
you have Unity Church. I think that is within 500 feet. I don't
know if that makes any difference any more. I am definitely
opposed to it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What would be the hours?
Mrs. Castaneda: We are open seven days a week. We are open Monday through
Thursday, 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday it is
11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday is 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. I have
no plans for extension of hours.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-2-29 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-446-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-2-29 by Vicki & Ramon Castaneda
requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in
conjunction with an existing restaurant (Old Mexico Restaurant) located
on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison Avenue in the
'No . Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, said property being zoned C-2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 90-8-2-29 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 subject site does not have the capacity to accommodate the
increased traffic which would be generated by approval of the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
11307
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-2-30 by McDonald's Corporation requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate a sit-down restaurant with a drive-thru window on
property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft
and Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
'to. 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 Middlebelt Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent
(60 feet) adjacent to the subject site in accordance with the
City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. In addition, since there are no
sanitary sewers within the Middlebelt Road right-of-way, it will be
necessary for the petitioner to obtain easement rights through the
property to the east of the restaurant site to the existing public
sanitary sewer. The Traffic Bureau has written a letter stating
the proposal is acceptable, however, due to the high traffic
volumes Middlebelt Road carries, they recommend an additional lane
be constructed along the frontage to provide a refuge lane for
patrons. This should help ease traffic friction caused by cars
slowing to enter McDonald's on the rear access drive. We also have
received a letter from the Division of Fire stating they have no
objection to this proposal. We have also received a letter from
the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or
problems were found and they have no objections to the proposal.
They do state they will require a complete sign proposal for
further evaluation. Also in our file is a letter from Ira
Berkowitz, President of Americas Auto Village business association
and also owner/operator of Tyre Express. He states, as a spokesman
for the association, they feel that the opening of a McDonalds
restaurant next to the mall will be advantageous and a welcome
`"" addition to their location. He further states he thinks the new
exposure will bring all new customers to our facilities.
Alan Helmkamp, 38525 Eight Mile Road: I am the attorney for the petitioner. With
me also is Bernie Whitman from the corporation and the property
owner, Marvin Walkon. The staff notes reflect a couple of
deficiencies in the site plan. We commit tonight to amending the
site plan to giving that additional handicap space. We will have
the required four. We commit also to make the drive-thru lane a
consistent 12 feet to remedy that deficiency. With regard to the
site plan, the building which we propose is the very newest of
McDonald's restaurants. It features a very nice wrap around glass
treatment, which is more extensive than previous restaurants. It
also will feature, instead of speaking to a speaker when you place
your order in the drive-thru, a face to face contact at the rear of
the restaurant with an individual employee who in addition to
taking your order will provide you with condominents and napkins
and what have you. We think that will make for a much more
efficient operation. The landscaping before you is in excess of
25%, far more than the ordinance requires. The setback of the
restaurant is almost 80 feet from the right-of-way. The signage
package will be low profile ground signage for the roadway sign
11308
consistent with the current attitude of the City and also
consistent with the restaurant we placed at Ann Arbor Road and Ann
Arbor Trail. We will do what we have to do to dedicate the
right-of-way as requested and we have taken measures to get the
easement for the sanitary sewer to the east. That property is
owned by the same owner that is selling to the corporation and that
has been part and parcel of our agreement.
I would briefly address the three issues which I think are concerns
tonight by this body, the first being traffic. There is, of
course, a concern on behalf of all of us for traffic in the area.
Obviously it is the traffic of Middlebelt Road and the traffic
count that has lead us to that site. We believe it is a good
location for this type of a restaurant. The Police Department
makes the recommendation for a deceleration lane and if that
appears sound to engineering and to the rest of the City, we are in
agreement with that and we will commit to that deceleration lane.
A question has been raised with respect to the impact of the
restaurant clientele visavis GM and Ford factories. I telephoned
both those places of business today. Ford's main shift works from
5:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. , with a secondary shift from 6:00 a.m. to
2:30 p.m. and a second shift from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. GM 's
main shift is 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. with a second shift from 3:30
p.m. until midnight. So with respect to both of those plants,
people will come off their main shift at 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.
The peak hours of operation of our restaurant are 7:30 to 8:30 in
the morning, which will be after those two shifts have gotten into
the plants. We do approximately 18% of our sales during that
morning peak shift. The number one shift of the day is 11:30 to
1:30. We do approximately 40% of our sales then so when their
shifts end at 1:30 and 2:30, our shift is over. Our peak clientele
usage will be over when those shifts come off work. Then the rest
of the day is pretty evenly spread out. We do have a dinner rush
but that will come a few hours after those main shifts let out. We
don't see our restaurant as really impacting usage wise the traffic
with those factories.
The second issue is what I might call restaurant oversaturation or
competition. We first looked at a site on Plymouth Road east of
Middlebelt. We had an option there and we put a lot of time and
effort and money in there. We made some preliminary inquiries to
the City and it was the Plymouth Road corridor competition issue
which convinced us to defer to the wish of the administration and
we walked away from that. We came to this site with the belief
that we will be serving a Middlebelt Road corridor. Our target
market will be served by people travelling Middlebelt Road. We see
very little diversion off Plymouth Road. With respect also to
competition, at the time this restaurant opens, we will
simultaneously be closing a McDonald's restaurant which is on
Plymouth Road just east of Inkster Road in Redford Township. To
put this into perspective, in concrete terms, you have on Plymouth
Road the Burger King Restaurant owned by Mr. Salem. His restaurant
is located 7/lOths of a mile from the McDonald's restaurant which
will close. This restaurant will be 8/lOths of a mile away plus it
`a..
11309
is on Middlebelt as opposed to Plymouth Road. We think, if
anything, there will be less competition for the Plymouth Road
travelling clientele for the competitors of McDonald's in that
area. We don't really see that as a detriment to this proposal.
The third issue which I want to briefly address is what will become
of the back parcel? The owner of the property will retain the back
`. parcel between the restaurant site and the one-family residential
area. There have been no inquiries from potential purchasers for
that parcel, therefore we see for the immediate future, a vacant
greenbelt area there. No one has a crystal ball here so who knows
what the future will hold but the owner of the property is here to
commit that he will not bring before the City a strip center or
anything of that nature and he is also present to answer any
questions or concerns you have in that regard. At this point I
will answer your questions.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Helmkamp, I just have two questions. Number one, you are
representing McDonald's. How many McDonald's do we have in the
City of Livonia?
Mr. Helmkamp: There is the new one at Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail. There
is the existing location at Middlebelt Road north of Five Mile and
then you have the restaurant on Farmington Road north of Seven Mile
Road.
Mr. Tent: So this would be the fourth one. You know McDonald's has been
talking about changing their concept of some of their restaurants.
You have indicated this will be kind of a modification that would
be just a little different. I am wondering what locations they
have done this where they have a new concept, which would be a sit
down, where they would serve, instead of carry-out food, regular
',`, restaurant type menu food? Are you familiar with that? If so, why
can't something like this be proposed within the City of Livonia?
We are looking for some nice sit-down restaurants that aren't the
ordinary fast food places.
Mr. Whitman: You have more information than we have in our region Mr. Tent. We
have never heard anything like this before. It is a first for us.
I can assure you McDonald's has no interest in providing table
service.
Mr. Tent: It was in one of the trade papers that said McDonald's is opening
up some restaurants, now this wasn't in the state of Michigan,
where they will be providing a different concept because they are
always exploring different ways of doing business.
Mr. Whitman: We would be most interested in seeing that article.
Mr. Tent: But you are not aware of that type of McDonald's?
Mr. Whitmen: No sir.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Helmkamp, on the north side where the access road is going to
go into the back property, there are no plans at this time to
11310
putting that road in? That is just going to be there for if
eventually they develop that back portion? Is that correct?
Mr. Helmkamp: Right. It is planning for the future potentially.
Mr. LaPine: Can you show me the way the traffic pattern will go for the
drive-in restaurant?
Mr. Helmkamp pointed this out on the map.
Mr. LaPine: How wide are the driveways?
Mr. Helmkamp: I believe the width is 22 feet.
Mr. Nagy: They are 22 feet on the south and 25 feet on the north.
Mr. LaPine: Between the two driveways, is it possible for the cars coming out
to pick up their food? Is that a turnaround? Can they go back
into the parking lot?
Mr. Whitman: The purpose of the turnaround would be if someone came in with the
intention of using the drive-thru service and changed their mind
and wished to go into the restaurant and then they can easily go
through the turnaround and park in the area.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Helmkamp, you did an excellent presentation. My first thought
when I saw this petition was that the two factories would be well
served by this. We have had the City give us an idea of the number
of restaurants that would service one mile in each direction. We
have come up with 50. That is an awful lot and I really am
concerned about that number.
``r. Mr. Helmkamp: I haven't seen that. I probably could speak to it more
specifically if I had. I am sure you are talking all types of
restaurants for one thing.
Mrs. Fandrei: We are talking all types of restaurants and eliminating things like
the yogurt and the cinnamon rolls, that would only be 5 that I
would be eliminating out of the whole 50, which wouldn't be similar
types.
Mr. Helmkamp: My recollection of the City's Restaurant Study, which I believe was
done in 1987, identified either five or six areas of cluster, which
were high density restaurant areas and I am willing to be corrected
but my recollection is that Middlebelt Road between Plymouth and
Schoolcraft does not fall within one of those identified high
cluster density areas.
Mrs. Fandrei: Not as dense as the areas in the other three directions but at the
same time we don't want to make it as dense.
Mr. Helmkamp: I understand but at least the City had not identified that, as by
what I perceive to be their definition, as an oversaturated area.
Mrs. Fandrei: This is current as of this last week.
11311
Mr. Helmkamp: McDonald's, with their 12,000 restaurants, do extensive market
surveying and planning prior to coming to a location. I feel
absolutely convinced that if they propose that site they are
absolutely certain that they will do very well there. Now I know
your question is what effect will that have on other restaurants
but again my question to you about what other types of restaurants
we are talking about because we may be comparing apples to oranges
'1105. and it is my belief that we will not be detracting from other
businesses, in fact, with the commitment to close the other
McDonald's on Plymouth Road, we may compete very well with the
existing restaurants on the Plymouth Road corridor so I would try
to add that into the cost benefit weighing that you are doing.
Laurie Schwartz, 11903 Haller: Basically I am behind the Auto Village. I am a
little bit affected by McDonald's. I was asked by my neighbors to
come tonight because I was asked to come for the Auto Village talks
earlier and we did discuss at length the proposition that
McDonald's could be put in behind us. We are pleased. We would
like to see it go through. I know the City would like to see
more industrial in our area but as residents we would rather see a
McDonald's. We feel comfortable because we feel McDonalds is
committed to the community. They came in a showed us a
presentation and we feel they care about our needs and that they
won't be detrimental to us in any way. I think the City would
benefit greatly by McDonald's being there. If a small factory were
built there, it won't be a very big one and chances are if it
outgrows its space there, it will leave. McDonald's would be a lot
more committed. It would be a lot more long term in our area. We
support the proposal. The traffic situation, it is not good now
but I don't think it will be worse. I think it would be good if
the City could put in a timed light like they have on Plymouth for
the left turn lane. That would help. I think because of the
traffic coming down Middlebelt, I don't think it will be more left
turns, I think it will be more people going to the north so there
would be more turning in off Middlebelt from the south. Mrs.
Fandrei mentioned the existing restaurants in the area. I think
Wonderland Mall probably makes up for the most part the restaurants
in that area so I don't think that will be affected at all by the
McDonald's because they are in the mall. I think McDonald's would
probably benefit our community in many ways. I do have two
concerns. I would like to see a commitment that the wall that we
have existing behind the Auto Village, it stops behind our property
and picks up again a little further down because the land is vacant
now and we would like to see that wall completed. I know the owner
of the property and we have discussed that and I think he would be
agreeable to that. One other concern of my neighbors and mine that
we had that I didn't notice in the presentation was the sewage
problem. It said that there were easement rights already so I
don't know if that means that it is already existing and will be
connected to an existing pipe and how that will affect us. If I
had a say in that I would like to see it funneled out to Middlebelt
or Plymouth Road. If not, we will accept it the way it is.
Mrs. Fandrei: Laurie, were any of your neighbors opposed to this?
11312
Ms. Schwartz: No.
Mr. Kluver: John, we have a clarification to clear in my own mind. The waiver
use that we have before us also will take into consideration the
site plan which will be part of it and also the landscape plan so
at this point those items should be looked at in detail. Are there
any questions by any member of this Commission regarding those
`1111. plans?
Mr. LaPine: I have a question on the site plan. Where will your dumpster be?
First let me ask you Mr. Helmkamp how much property is there left
from the rear of where you are at to where the residents are?
Mr. Helmkamp: Mr. Walkon indicates from the rear of our property to the
residential is 325 feet. (Mr. Helmkamp pointed out the dumpster
on the site plan)
Mr. LaPine: The young lady mentioned that they had met with the owners of the
property. Is he willing to commit to put up the masonry wall behind
the balance of this property at the time the construction goes on
with the McDonald's?
Marvin Walkon, 600 Travelers Tower, Southfield: I am the owner of the property and
I will make that commitment. In response to another question that
was raised regarding the balance of the property, I have previously
committed and will commit again tonight, there will be no strip
center there. Under no circumstances will there be a strip center
there and if that is a concern, I make that commitment tonight.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Walkon, if it is not going to be a strip center behind there,
what ideas are we looking at?
Mr. Walkon: It would not be industrial nor would it be office. It would be
some form of commercial although frankly we have not had a nibble
on the rear property. I have committed to the neighborhood, and I
will abide by this commitment, that under no circumstances will I
build industrial on the balance of that property. I have commited
that not to the Planning Commission but to the neighborhood.
Mr. McCann: No strip mall?
Mr. Walkon: Absolutely not.
Mr. Tent: I feel that Mr. Helmkamp made a very good presentation and he
answered a lot of questions I had, however, what I would like to go
into further is the landscape plans, the site plans, the sewer that
the lady had spoken about. Of course, there was a commitment made
for the wall. I am concerned about the traffic lane. I would like
to see some of this additional information before I take action. I
would like to refer this to a study meeting and get all the answers
and then act on it as quickly as possible. However, I think you
have done a nice job.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Helmkamp, what is the entrance, exit at the rear of the
property and what is it for?
11314
of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 90-8-2-30 until the study meeting of
September 25, 1990.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
``r• AYES: Tent, Kluver, Fandrei
NAYS: McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
#t9-447-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-2-30 by McDonald's Corporation
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a sit-down
restaurant with a drive-thru window on property located on the east side
of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-8-2-30 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated August 22, 1990 prepared
by McDonald's Corporation, which is hereby approved, shall be
adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plans marked A04 and A05 dated June 1,
1990 prepared by McDonald's Corporation, which are hereby approved,
shall be adhered to.
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS-1 prepared by McDonald's
Corporation, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to and
shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a
healthy condition.
4) That the additional deceleration lane be constructed the full width
of the property and in full compliance with all the approvals
necessary from Wayne County.
5) That a masonry wall in the back of the surplus property be
constructed to match the existing wall before the new building is
occupied.
6) That a letter from the owner of the property be forwarded to the
City declaring that he will not allow any industrial or strip malls
to be built upon the surplus property.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all applicable waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Zoning Ordinance
##543.
11313
Mr. Helmkamp: It is planned to be available towards a future potentiality. It
will be blocked off at this point.
Mr. Whitman: We have entered a contract into a reciprocal easement agreement for
access on the balance of the land. We are hoping it is approved in
the near future also and will be generating a compatible neighbor.
The purpose of that is it is nothing more than a future proposed
Nr opening so the customers can go to and from each other's
development. There will be cuts there but it will be barricaded.
There will be no access.
Mr. Helmkamp displayed the landscape plans.
Mr. LaPine: Could you show us where we would construct the additional lane on
Middlebelt Road?
Mr. Helmkamp: It would be a strip on the south side 88 feet and on the north side
approximately 97 feet.
Mr. LaPine: So cars pulling out can pull out into that lane and hold until the
traffic clears?
Mr. Helmkamp: Correct.
Mr. Tent: I would like to table the petition until the next study meeting to
get additional plans to see what the building looks like and to
answer some of the questions.
Mr. McCann: Besides the wrap around glass, is there anything else we are
continuing this for?
Mr. Tent: Yes, the roadway. I think there will be some question about the
L. deceleration lane. There is some question about the wall. I
would like to see that put into the drawings. I would like to see
the dumpster incorporated within the drawing.
Mr. McCann: The dumpster was shown on the drawings. Were the traffic lanes
incorporated into the drawings?
Mr. Nagy: No. It is a Wayne County road and would have to be subject to
Wayne County approval.
Mr. Tent: I want to be satisfied with the sewer system and also the wall.
Mrs. Fandrei: I would also like to see the building material and if you have any
pictures of a current building similar to what you are building.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Kluver, Vice
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-2-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 18, 1990 on Petition 90-8-2-30 by McDonald's Corporation
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a sit-down
restaurant with a drive-thru window on property located on the east side
11315
2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Kluver, Morrow, Fandrei
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to go back to Petition No. 8 and ask for a number of
computations on the Handy Andy site. I would like to add to that
the amount of landscaping on the site.
Mr. Kluver, Vice 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. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#9-448-90 RESOLVED, that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
14, 1990 on Petition 90-7-1-16 by Philip Barth requesting to rezone
property located on the east side of Farmington Road, north of Curtis
Avenue, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from R-1 to OS, the City
`r. Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 90-7-1-16 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is in compliance with the Future
Land Use Plan which designates this general area along Farmington
Road for office use.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the Farmington Road frontage between Curtis
Road and Seven Mile Road.
4) That the proposed change of zoning provided for the development of
shallow depth lots along a heavily traveled thoroughfare and forms
a buffer between the thoroughfare and adjacent residences to the
east.
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.
\r.
11316
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Kluver
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
`ow, resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-449-90 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 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for more
standards regarding outdoor sales of plants and garden supplies.
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. Kluver, Vice 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
#9-450-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
1, 1988 on Petition 88-9-2-47 by Mt. Hope Memorial Gardens requesting
waiver use approval to erect a pole barn within a cemetery located on
the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Six Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby
Nor recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-2-47 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 8-24-90, as revised, prepared by Basney &
Smith, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 9-14-90, as revised,
prepared by J. K. Janiga Architects, Inc. which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
3) That the Landscape Plan submitted is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and shall therafter be permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
4) That the evergreen trees shown on the approved landscape plan shall
be a minimum of 6'to 7' in height at the time of installation and
the landscaping shall be irrigated as indicated on the petitioner's
letter dated
5) That the existing 10' high fence shall be repaired as needed.
for the following reasons:
11317
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all applicable waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
#543.
2) That the proposed use will provide for the inside storage of a
variety of equipment and the removal of several existing accessory
buildings.
`rr.
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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-451-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 606th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 1990 are
approved.
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
it was
#9-452-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 607th Regular Meeting held by the City
"Na. Plannig Commission on August 28, 1990 are approved.
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was
#9-453-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 364th Special Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on September 11, 1990 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McCann
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously
approved, it was
11318
#9-454-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
90-9-8-13 by Hardee's Food System, Inc. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to rebuild a Hardee's Restaurant on the north side of Grand
River between Eight Mile Road and Inkster Road in Section 1, subject to
tom' the following conditions:
1) That Site Plan #88518.12, Sheet S-1 dated 12-26-89 prepared by
Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2) That Building Plan #88518.12, Sheets A-6 and A-7 dated 11-6-89
prepared by Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3) That Landscape Plan dated 1-9-90 prepared by Hardee's Food Systems,
Inc. is hereby approved and shall be installed on site prior to
building occupancy.
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#9-455-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with
Petition 86-8-8-50 by Dominic Soave requesting approval of all plans
required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a retail and office building on the west side of Newburgh Road
between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in Section 6 with reference
'timmy to a request by the petitioner to connect the rear parking and service
area to Seven Mile Road with a new drive approach, be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1) That the driveway location plan to Bethany Street dated 8-20-90 for
Dominic Soave at Fountain View Plaza as prepared by Norman C.
Kaipio, Land Surveyor, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan for the drive approach dated 9-13-90
prepared by Dominic Soave is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Gniewek, Kluver
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
11319
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 608th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on September 18, 1990 was adjourned at 11:45
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
•
,/;./ Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary
ATTEST: &�I tt,„ ti : /11
Herman Kluver, ice Chairman
jg