HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-10-16 11324
MINUTES OF THE 610th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 16, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 610th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 50 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei**
William LaPine* Raymond W. Tent Conrad Gniewek
R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become
effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission
Saw has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff
with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use
them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Tent acted as Secretary since Mrs. Fandrei was not present at the beginning of
the meeting.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-1-21 by William Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on
the north side of Schoolcraft, west of Richfield in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 19 from RUF to OS.
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 rezoning proposal. We have also
received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to this petition, however they do maintain overhead lines
on this property that would conflict with any construction.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Roskelly would you like to come forward and tell us why you
are making this request?
* 7:32 - Mr. LaPine entered the meeting at this time.
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: The only reason I am asking for office zoning
is due to the fact that it is the only zoning that permits a day
11325
care facility. I think we all are cognizant of the fact this City
and all communities are in dire straights for day care centers. If
you notice in the rezoning map that I submitted, I have also
indicated a site plan of the proposed building. Realizing that
this is premature, I also have to somehow reassure you that my only
Nom. intent is to build a day care center. I am not interested in an
office whatsoever. I could commit to you that this is the sole
purpose for a day care center. We are aware of a great demand for
this facility and if I am successful in my rezoning petition, I
will commit to you that I will built it, own it and with a partner,
we will maintain it. My partner is a graduate of the University of
Michigan. She is certified in pre-school and one through five.
She presently is a substitute teacher in Livonia schools and has
worked in a day care center. She is my partner and daughter, Lisa
Marie Roskelly. Just a couple of points. I think the location is
somewhat desirous if we consider the fact that a day care center
houses preschool children. Right now if a day care center was put
in an office center or shopping center, I don't think it would be
palatable to have children in a maze of parking lots, driveways,
etc. In this case we have the luxury of the rear to be residential
and, along with the site plan I provided, it shows a lot of open
space and I think it is a very desirable area for use. Being on
the Schoolcraft service road, I do not believe it would create any
traffic hazard for adjoining property owners. With that I will
open it up for questions.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, how far from the Schoolcraft service drive will your
building be?
_try_ Mr. Roskelly: I might point out that if this board sees fit that this is a
desirable use, I will enter with the Council or City Attorney any
document that will be required that could assure it is only a day
care center that is going in, being fully cognizant you cannot
condition zoning, but I suggest a legal recorded document might be
prepared in a form that would state we would build strictly a day
care center or it would revert back to RUF. (Mr. Roskelly set the
plot plan on the board for the Commissioners and audience to view)
We have one approach in and out which is approximately 130 feet to
140 feet from the intersection of Richfield. Since Schoolcraft is
a westbound service drive, there is only a one-way traffic pattern.
We then set back approximately 50 foot of greenbelt and a drive of
22 feet. We are looking at about 120 feet of right-of-way from
Schoolcraft. The setback from Richfield would be a minimum of 50
feet. The setback from the existing house on the north would be a
minimum of 50 feet where we would leave the existing trees and
woods and then we would have a play yard after that. The building
would be approximately 140 feet by 44 feet. It would house
approximately 6 classrooms and would hold about 60 children.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, the area in the rear that is all wooded behind your
building, would you have a fenced in area for the children?
Mr. Roskelly: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: The other question I had is the one you just spoke to before you
Nftw put up the map. That is the fact that if we rezone the property and
11326
the day center doesn't make it, we still have the OS zoning there
which in reality could go back to an office situation. John, Mr.
Roskelly mentioned he could get a legal document and the property
would revert back. Can that be done legally? I thought that once
it was rezoned, it couldn't be rezoned unless it was brought back
``"' before us.
Mr. Nagy: The deed restrictions that would be part of the rezoning of the
property could only be enforced by the City of Livonia if Mr.
Roskelly wanted to make the City of Livonia a party to those deed
restrictions otherwise it would have to be voluntary on Mr.
Roskelly's part.
Mr. LaPine: I understand that, but what I am saying would it be legal and
binding if he moves out and the property would no longer be a day
care would the zoning revert back to what it is now?
Mr. Nagy: Only if the parties to that contract were to enforce it. If the
City of Livonia is a party to that restrictive covenant and then
the City, even if Mr. Roskelly were to sell it since the City then
becomes a party to that contract and that covenant, then the City
could step in and compel the rezoning back to residential.
Otherwise, we would have to take Mr. Roskelly at face value that he
will, in fact, enforce the covenants to which he and his successors
are the only parties to.
Mr. LaPine: What you are telling me is if the City decides they don't want to
enter into that agreement, then we are at the mercy of Mr.
Roskelly?
``r.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Tent: Do you own the property or do you have an option to buy?
Mr. Roskelly: I have purchased the property.
Mr. Tent: I do think we need more of this type of facility in the City but I
am not too certain about this location here. Have you explored
other areas that have the OS zoning of this particular size that
would be just as compatible and that would be in an area that would
be more conducive to this type of operation?
Mr. Roskelly: I have explored other areas such as the land I have some control of
on Seven Mile and Newburgh but I relate to the fact that if you
have a maze of offices, which could be as much as three or four
hundred thousand square foot of offices on Seven Mile and Newburgh,
assuming it all goes about as planned, and you plunk in a day care
center, you have these children looking at parking lots, driveways,
two-story buildings, four-story buildings and they don't get a
feeling of the aesthetics and I again relate back to the fact that
why are all of your elementary schools tucked into a residential
district? To give the children a feeling of security, a feeling of
residential. I personally believe this is a dynamite spot for a
day care center. Just to go on a little bit as a guarantee, I hope
you don't think I am grandstanding by bringing my daughter here.
`4411. Please understand this is a family affair. I am not building this
for profit to sell. I am building it so my daughter will have a
business which she is quite capable and able to handle.
11327
Mr. Tent: What I had in mind, we have an item here on item number 3, which is
currently zoned OS and they want to rezone it to C-1 and that is
right on Middlebelt Road, which would be probably conducive for
this type of use. It has an acreage of 1.68 acres, which is a
"41wir little bigger than this and the location would be on Bretton and
Middlebelt.
Mr. Roskelly: If you relate geographically to where this parcel is located, it is
highly accessible to both expressways, it is on an arterial road
and a service road of an expressway, it is near the colleges and it
is near the industrial belt and right now I do not think you have a
day care center within that immediate area. I honestly think it
is a great area.
Mr. Tent: My only concern is the encroachment into residential area and
whether this would set a pattern.
Mr. Roskelly: I think, Mr. Tent, the fact that it is a day care, we are looking
at hours from a maximum of 7:00 in the morning until 7:00 at night,
five days a week, so certainly I don't believe it would impede the
quality of life in the immediate area or in the City of Livonia nor
would I believe it would in any way encroach on the health, welfare
or safety of the citizens of Livonia.
Mr. Tent: The way I look at it these little children let them be exposed to
some of the real things in life.
Mr. Roskelly: I think perhaps they shouldn't be 3, 4 and 5 years of age when that
exposure takes place.
*4111.
Mr. Kluver: Mr. Roskelly, since this is a rezoning issue and we are chartered
to look at the effect of rezoning, the area under petition is
designated as low density residential on the Future Land Use Plan
of the City of Livonia. In essence, the petition that you have
here is in conflict with that Future Land Use Plan. I say that
because I have a great interest in and support the Future Land Use
Plan. It is the blueprint for the City and it designates areas
that were used to guide and develop the City. I certainly look at
your project as one that is a worthy project but possibly again a
case of the wrong location in the City. It might be advisable to
look at some other areas. But, again, it does conflict with the
Future Land Use Plan.
Mr. Roskelly: Mr. Kluver, I suspect that number one that when this area was
subdivided, several years ago, at that time we had Schoolcraft Road
not as an expressway service road, and certainly I am not
questioning the intelligence of this Planning board, but I suspect
that to look at that parcel of land and listen to the noise and all
the traffic I don't believe anybody here at this table could tell
me that they would have any great preference to build their home
there. Again, I am not knocking your Master Plan, I understand
where you are coming from and I am the first to acknowledge the
fact that it becomes spot zoning, but is it not true that day care
centers is sort of a babes in arms and perhaps this City and many
11328
other communities ought to venture into a specific zoning for this
specific use, which is not completely an office use. It is not PS.
It is not industrial. It is an unique use that is only similar to
elementary schools which are tucked into the center of residential
subdivisions.
Now
Mr. Kluver: Possibly you have some merit in your suggestion that we need an
unique type of zoning but in regards to the question about
residential housing and it being on a major thoroughfare, major
roads in the City, i.e. Farmington Road, Six Mile, Five Mile,
I-275, etc. there have been numbers of residential developments in
the last ten years on these traffic corridors. Also there have
been many lots which have been developed along the Schoolcraft
service drive, which have been developed with houses. I appreciate
what you say but I have difficulty in accepting it in the reality
of the real world and what is happening out there.
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, isn't it true that there were several lots along that
particular area that were reviewed by the Planning Commission where
we did have some homes built there relatively recently?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is true. At least two parcels come to mind.
Mr. Gniewek: Are any of those homes empty? All those homes are occupied at this
present time and I don't think they stayed on the market very long.
Is that true?
Mr. Nagy: My observation is that most of them are occupied.
Bob Jamrog, 14024 Richfield: That is Lot 30. I am acting as President and
spokesman for the Schoolcraft Zimmerman Neighborhood Association.
We collectively, as indicated by petition, overwhelmingly oppose
Mr. William Roskelly's petition to rezone Lot 64a, 65a, and 66a
from rural to office services and I have several reasons why.
Assurances were given at the time of development of Lots 22 through
25 from RUF to professional services that this would be the end
point of commercial development along the Schoolcraft corridor.
Traffic patterns down Richfield would be increased for people
avoiding the light at Newburgh and Schoolcraft. We presently have
that problem. The need to maintain residential environment, as
indicated earlier, and this property was originally zoned RUF. To
prevent continued erosion from the residential sites on Schoolcraft
as you pointed out earlier and the increased noise level, even
though it is a day care center, of children playing in the back and
impacting the residential area and this would act as a catalyst for
further development along that Schoolcraft corridor for commercial
and it would have a negative impact on property value, no doubt
about it.
Mr. Engebretson: What assurances were you referring to in your first point.
Mr. Jamrog: As you know Lots 22 through 25 were RUF. Three years ago they were
developed as professional services because it was indicated there
was such a dire need for office space. To date, that office space
is not 100% occupied. It was also indicated that the original
'Now owner was going to operate his business in there. That never
happened.
11329
Mr. Engebretson: Who gave you the assurances that the PS district was the end of
the intrusion that you referred to in your opening statement?
Mr. Jamrog: In previous meetings with the City Council and the Planning
New that,
they indicated to us, and Mr. Roskelly was a party to
that, that it was undesirable. If you look on the map Lots 28, 27
and 26, my neighbor in her foresight purchased half of those lots
to prevent further commercial development and thank God she did
because that would have been a desirable piece of property for
commercial development. (Mr. Jamrog turned the petition in to the
Commission)
George Bielis, 14051 Richfield: This is Lot 62. I am also a licensed real estate
agent for Arbor Hill Real Estate and when this petition started I
did a search on this property and I just wanted to reiterate that
it was this Planning Commission, a year and a half ago, that prided
itself on putting those homes along Schoolcraft and maintaining the
initial plan that Livonia put in place. I did a search on that and
I found out those homes along Schoolcraft are going between $89,000
and $94,000, which is very comparable to homes within the Castle
Gardens. Homes along Schoolcraft are selling very well. I see no
reason why that piece of property on Richfield cannot be further
developed into some more additional residential homes. I am in the
process of becoming a grandfather and I would not want any of my
grandchildren going to a day care center that was right along an
expressway.
Dan Golden, 14124 Richfield: I have lived there for three years. I bought the
property from Bill Cullens who was a Police Detective for Livonia
Police Department. It was a unique sale from the standpoint that I
have two young boys. We bought it primarily for the reason the
size of the lot, which is unique to the City of Livonia because it
is a full acre of land. It also has a dirt road. The bad thing
about it is when it exits over Schoolcraft, you lead right into the
traffic of I-96. The problem with that is that we get a lot of
traffic coming through on the dirt road to get to the entrance ramp
to I-96. Now that is good in one respect but it is also bad from
the standpoint that when the dirt road gets ruddy, the traffic
pattern reduces so I have a concern as a homeowner and also as a
parent that there is going to be an increased traffic pattern from
the standpoint if you say there is going to be 60 children housed
in the day care center, so access to the day care center will be
coming from the northwest, coming down Richfield. Mr. Roskelly
also said from the standpoint too that the aesthetics of the
property are unique because of the serene setting but if that is
true, the playground is going to be facing out towards Schoolcraft
so you are going to have a large traffic pattern. I don't think I
would particularly care to have my kids playing next to an
intersection or an access road which leads to a major entrance ramp
to an interstate access. The other think I am concerned about is
if the Commission grants the change in zoning, if the business is
unsuccessful, what happens to the property then? Does it go into
an office space or what could possibly become the future of that
property if his daughter does not become successful? That is my
concern.
11330
Joan Turshnuik, 14000 Richfield: My property is Lot 29. I also own Lots 27 and
28, the north half. Lots 27 and 28 are directly across from this
property. I bought that property to protect myself so this would
not happen, that there would not be commercial property going right
` r.• next door to me but I also bought it because I wanted to have that
privacy there and I am glad I did that. My concern is this
property extends at least 300 feet onto Richfield and that could
very easily be sold as residential property, divided up and homes
be built. I have had offers from people to purchase my land. I
don't think there is going to be any problem developing that
property for building sites for homes. This is not in keeping at
all with the whole atmosphere of this neighborhood and I think it
would be a real disservice to this community to have that there and
it may set a precedent for other rezonings. We have that one
rezoning at the corner of Schoolcraft and Newburgh, which are two
main roads, but this is not a main road. One other thing, it was
mentioned that schools are built in residential areas. That is
true schools are in residential areas, owned by the residents by
the community. This is a profit making organization. It is very
different.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Roskelly, was there ever any attempt on your part to contact
the homeowners or civic association to give a little more in depth
insight in what you were trying to do with this zoning?
Mr. Roskelly: I spoke to the owner of the home directly to the north of this and
I had given her a copy of the site plan. She indicated that she is
an employee of the City and many of her neighbors had been asking
her so I said I would give her a couple of prints and I would
`. certainly solicit any comments from any of the neighbors but other
than that I have not spoken with anyone.
Mr. Morrow: The point I am trying to make is obviously you have made an
investment there and you have certainly made some good points on
your projects and surely the neighbors have made some good points
on their side but I just wanted to establish some of the objections
and comments that were made by the neighbors, if they knew the use
you were intending for it?
Mr. Roskelly: I thought they might have known about the proposed use but it is
possible they didn't. Just on a couple of little correction items.
One of the gentlemen said that the playground was in the front.
That is not true. It is in the back and it is in a fenced area.
Just in defense of the dirt road, I can't personally and I don't
have first hand information, but certainly if I were bringing my
child or grandchild to a day care center, I don't believe I would
venture on a dirt road such as Richfield when I would have the
service road and the access to the main road.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Bob Jamrog, since you are the President of the civic association,
how close is the closest elementary school?
Mr. Jamrog: It is in Castle Gardens Subdivision, about 3/4 of a mile.
11331
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have any churches in the area that have nursery schools?
Mr. Jamrog: Yes my daughter takes her kids to Livonia Little Tots at Six Mile
and Newburgh.
Now
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is there a church in Castle Gardens with a day care center?
Mr. Jamrog: Randolph Elementary School.
Mr. Roskelly: I have the pleasure of having two of my grandchildren going to a
day care center. What you have presently is several obsolete
schools which have been converted into day care centers. The one
thing I find these are little people. I don't believe they have
proper bathroom facilities. They do not have proper room sizes,
etc. What I am proposing is a first class up-to-date building
designed for little people and as I imply I will call it Little
People University. I think it would be a tremendous asset to this
community and I would hope that I have partially convinced you
people that the location is palatable. Thank you for your
kindness.
Mr. Engebretson: There were 31 signatures on this petition that Mr. Jamrog
presented for the record. Twenty-nine of the signatures were
residents on Richfield and the other two give addresses in the
37000 block of Schoolcraft.
Mr. Tent: If you are unsuccessful with this petition, would you build homes
on these three lots, because you are a good builder?
Mr. Roskelly: No sir.
Mr. Tent: Would you sell the lots?
Mr. Roskelly: No, I would continue to resubmit until such time as you would
indulge my great adventure.
Mr. Engebretson: Before I close the public hearing, I would like to say that I
don't think there is anyone here that doubts the ability you have
to create great adventures and there certainly is a need for this
kind of operation within the City and there is more of that kind of
need everyday. The only question I sense here, is this the right
location?
Mr. Roskelly: Regardless of your decision, I still hold you people in high
regard.
Mr. McCann: I have kind of kept silent. I have a lot of sympathy with the
people out there, however I have little ones of my own in day care
and one of the things I have seen with Clay, Hoover, Marshall,
etc. , they all are centered in subdivisions. It is not a question
to me of whether it is private or profit. The idea is if you have
little kids, they are going to be the safest in a subdivided area
where if they do get out by chance and start wandering, they are
going to wander into someone's home not into an office building
11332
where we are going to have strangers to the community coming and
going. It would be normally in the area where they live, where
there would be people that would recognize them. I would think in
a situation like this, it is going to be people in the area that
are going to be using the day care center. It is going to be your
"Nom. neighbors that have kids that have to work. They are going to want
to take them to a local school where it is close to home, where
they can keep an eye on it and it is safe. I understand the
concerns and I think it is a problem with the City in that they
determine that day care centers should be under the OS or office
area. I think the ordinance is wrong and not the idea of having it
here. I certainly don't want to see an office building here. I
have a problem that the zoning runs with the land. I will not vote
for it because an office could be put there. My personal beliefs
have always been that little kids in day nurseries should be in the
center of subdivisions, not near malls, not near main roads and if
I have a problem with this one it is because it is close to
Schoolcraft Road. I like the idea this one does have the woods
around it, it does have the fence. It is difficult because it is
in your subdivision and I know that anybody that lives in Livonia
they don't want added traffic and the other problems associated
with the schools, etc. but this is a community where we are raising
our children and I have always taken that as a priority in this
community. This is a tough one for me personally but I wanted to
make my feelings known. I don't think it is the fault of the
petitioner in this that he has to petition for office use. I think
it is the fault of the City with that type of zoning because I
personally think little children belong in a subdivided area not in
a commercial or office area.
Nosy
Mr. LaPine: As Mr. McCann pointed out, this is a tough decision for us. We sit
up here and we want to do what is right for the residents in the
area. We also feel we owe an obligation for what we feel is right
for the whole community. We sit here and we have cases come in
where developers want to put up senior citizens housing and no
matter where they go, people in the area are opposed. The fact
still remains the senior citizens have a right to live in senior
citizen housing. The same thing with day care. It is a new idea
and we need day care centers in the City. No matter where we go,
as a matter of fact not too long ago we had a case come before this
board that someone wanted to put a day care center in a school, the
neighborhood was all against it. Where are you going to put them?
We have to look at what we feel is in a fairly good location. I am
not opposed to this. The gentleman out there said do you want your
children playing on Schoolcraft? No. That is why I asked how far
back the building is going to set from Schoolcraft. It is 90 feet.
He is going to have a play area in the back that is fenced. If the
children are well supervised, they will be in the back in the play
yard, not out in front. I don't think this is a bad location for
this day care center. If we turn it down here and he moves to the
other side of town, the people over there are going to be opposed.
No matter where you go, there is going to be opposition. If we
turn down every one that comes in here, we will never have a day
care center in this City so I, for one, am for it. I know it isn't
a popular decision with the neighbors but I don't think it is a bad
location and therefore I will urge my fellow commissioners to vote
for it.
11333
Mr. Tent: I have to agree with Mr. McCann. The fact is we do need some type
of zoning to handle a situation like this. The zoning we have here
is not correct and for this reason I would be opposed to this type
of petition but if at some future date, the zoning was changed to
accommodate uses of this type, then we would be within our rights
to go ahead and then we would be protected as to what is going into
a location. As we mentioned earlier with this petition, there is
no guarantee that if this facility did not work in some way, it
could become an office and this is contrary to what we had planned
for the area so I would encourage the City to look into a zoning
category strictly for this type of operation and then provide that
in an area where we could safeguard it and that would allow this
type of an operation but I can't agree with this site here because
of the zoning that we have on it.
Mr. Kluver: Mr. Roskelly, are you the owner of record of this parcel or is this
contingent upon the rezoning?
Mr. Roskelly: I am the owner of record.
Mr. Morrow: One comment. We have tried very diligently to bring out all the
facts on what is going in here tonight in this public hearing but
somehow I think we have fallen short because of the classification
as Mr. McCann pointed out. If I have the opportunity, when the
public hearing closes, I am going to urge my fellow commissioners
to consider a tabling resolution so Mr. Roskelly can have an
opportunity to meet with the subdivision so that when decisions are
made everyone has a good insight on what we are talking about
because it is a little tenuous talking conditioning of zoning in
conjunction with an environment which is residential.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-1-21 closed.
Mr. McCann: I would like to make a tabling resolution (1) for the purposes of,
as Mr. Morrow has stated, regarding the opportunity for Mr.
Roskelly to make his proposal clear as to the actual building site
that he is proposing for the neighbors and (2) to have the Law
Department take a look at it and see, if Mr. Roskelly is willing to
provide for a covenant in the deed, what steps would be necessary
to make that binding.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
410-464-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
16, 1990 on Petition 90-8-1-21 by William Roskelly requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Schoolcraft, west of Richfield in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF to OS, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-8-1-21 until the
study meeting of November 8, 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.
`•rr
11334
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson
NAYS: Gniewek, Kluver, Tent
ABSENT: Fandrei
Now
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-8-1-22 by Charles Tangora for Italian Club of Livonia & Dan Arnold
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile
Road, east of the I-275 Freeway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 18 from
RE to C-2.
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
there are no storm or sanitary sewers readily available to service
the site. They further state access to the site may be limited due
to the limited access requirements along Five Mile Road imposed by
the Michigan Department of Transportation. We also have received a
letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to this
petition. We have also received a petition signed by 32 area
residents stating they are opposed to this petition because they
don't wish to be so close to a social/meeting club which will be
also used for wedding receptions, showers, bachelor parties with
all the attached problems of noise, liquor and trash.
`rte.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora, would you like to come up and present your plan?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile: I represent and also am a club member of the
Italian-American Club of Livonia. The club is obviously a heritage
club which was formed about 13 years ago in Livonia, consisting of
Italian families. It has grown very dramatically. About 8 years
ago the club bought the facility that used to be the clubhouse in
Rosedale Gardens right in the middle of a residential section. It
has been our clubhouse and we have utilized it for the past 8
years as a clubhouse and meeting facility. The growth of the club
has been dramatic. We are now over 330 families and we are
primarily a family club and this expansion has lead the Board of
Directors to seek a site that would give us room to build the type
of facility that could accommodate our club members and also give
us the opportunity to do the things we can't really do in the
residential area right now. We think you are all familiar with the
site right next to the Presbyterian Church at Hubbard and West
Chicago. It is also on a street where residential homes are
located. We feel that this particular site gives us the type of
opportunity to do the things that will allow us to have the club
members in one building. We need the commercial zoning because we
have numerous requests from our own club members as well as others
that would like to rent the facilities for wedding receptions but
they would have to be very small because we don't intend to compete
11335
with our fellow club members, Mr. DelSignore and Mr. Paparelli who
own and operate the Laurel Manor Hall and also the Roma Hall. Our
facility would be small. It would be the type that would be used
for showers and meetings and things of that nature. We have
somwhat of a conceptual diagram to just kind of locate where the
facility will be and, if you wish, I would like to show you that.
It is strictly conceptual at this point in time and we are a long
ways away from finalizing our plans of the type of clubhouse that
we would like to have. (Mr. Tangora presented the plan) This
clubhouse would be in the area of about 10,000 square feet, which
would be about 1/5th the size of Laurel Manor. It allows us
meeting rooms for the club, for families, for small showers, small
wedding receptions possibly, board room and office space. On the
far side is Five Mile Road and in the corner is I-275. We placed
the building on the far corner of the property. It is at the
intersection of I-275 and Five Mile Road, furthest away from the
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church. It abuts right up against the
expressway. We would come in from the furthest point to the east
of the property on Five Mile Road because I think the indication is
there is limited access to this property and that is the only place
you can enter the property. As I have indicated to you this is
conceptual in nature only but it gives you some kind of an idea of
the size of the building and how it fits on the property. If you
have any questions, we will be happy to answer them.
Mr. Morrow: How much of a fall off is that Mr. Tangora from where your entrance
is to approximately where you plan on putting your clubhouse? It
looks like a fairly severe grade there?
,`, Mr. Tangora: I am not really sure of the dimension of the height of that bridge
area. It is dramatic. The building would be down below. You
would probably be looking down towards the top of the building but
I can't give you the actual footage.
Mr. Morrow: It is a rather severe drop.
Mr. Tangora: Absolutely. I might mention another point. We are not asking for
a Class C liquor license. We do not intend to sell liquor at this
facility. We feel that is a liability situation for the club. As
the club's attorney I recommend against it. We are not in the
liquor business and we are not asking for a Class C liquor license.
Mr. Tent: You indicated the club has been located in Rosedale Gardens for
eight years. Have you had any problems there with the neighbors as
far as noise, the liquor or the parties?
Mr. Tangora: I am not aware of any. In fact, I would like to think that we have
been good neighbors. We keep up our property in excellent shape
and I think we have always had a good relationship with the church
and with the citizens that live there. We know we do impact them
and we do have meetings there and there are a number of cars that
come to the facility for meetings and parties and I think this is
one of the reasons that we don't want to impact that neighborhood
any more.
11336
Mr. Tent: That is commendable because I am familiar with the area, and an
establishment like this could create a problem if you weren't good
tenants. Inasmuch as there haven't been any violations or any
repercussions, I feel that you probably have been good neighbors.
`.
Mr. McCann: I was looking at your preliminary site plan. The parking looks
sufficient for the building you are requesting. However, I see a
drive going into the northern end of your property. I assume that
is going to be a park or some structure?
Mr. Tangora: The site is heavily wooded. The property that we would not be
using would be retained in its present state. It is really kind of
difficult to anticipate a future development but I think there is
an opportunity for the club to put in bocci courts, maybe a picnic
area and these would all be in the area that is not being used for
parking for the clubhouse.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Tangora, your clubhouse in Rosedale Gardens, how many square
feet is that?
Mr. Tangora: Eleven hundred square feet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This one is nine times as big.
Mr. Tangora: We have a full basement over there. If you want to count that, you
can double that. This hall will not have a basement.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many people would show up for a board meeting?
Mr. Tangora: I would say about 20 people.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have liquor there now?
Mr. Tangora: We have beer for our own use. We do not have any liquor.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What about if you have receptions or showers? Do you just serve
beer and wine?
Mr. Tangora: Again, we would not sell it. You would have to have a liquor
license to sell any type of beverage of that nature and we do not
intend to get into that type of business where we would be serving
liquor. If the facility was used by our own club members, they
could bring in their own liquor or beer and wine. Again, they
could not sell it. It would be for their own consumption.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to have a kitchen?
Mr. Tangora: Yes for food preparation.
Mr. Vyhnalek: A normal kitchen like Roma Hall but smaller?
Mr. Tangora: Absolutely.
Ronald Erwin, 15325 Knolson: I also wrote a letter approximately two pages long
which should be in your hands and it lists 10 different reasons I
'4111. felt the zoning should not be changed from RE to C-2.
11337
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have a copy of that?
Mr. Nagy: It was part of the petition of opposition. Why don't you read it
into the record sir?
`"ft' Mr. Erwin: I will read them as I have written them. Please consider the
following probabilities. 1. Removal of the trees - our only buffer
to the noise of the expressway. We need more buffer not less or
none. 2. You have a propsal for a social club with halls large
enough for wedding receptions and any other events that the space
can be rented. This will mean kitchens and food preparation
facilities and dumpsters for the waste food and grease. A
combination sure to create less than pleasant odors and rodent
populations. 3. Loud bands playing til 1 or 2 a.m. within 300' of
our bedroom windows. 4. The excess blowing of paper trash, liquor
bottles and beer cans onto our properties. 5. The unsettling sound
of car horns, shouts, squealing tires and racing engines in the
parking lots and on Five Mile Road. 6. The after-drinking fights
of guests at the parties in the parking lots. 7. The increased
traffic along Five Mile Road. Most cars travel at 50 M.P.H. or
more (posted at 45) now will have to contend with one more traffic
entrance. A real HIDDEN/SUICIDE entrance for cars eastbound coming
over the overpass hill. 8. Check with the Livonia Water Dept. to
see if the system we have now will handle the watershed from
buildings and parking lots. We seem to be having enough water
problems on Five Mile Road. Note the several barricaded holes
lately. 9. If for some unknown reason, you choose to ignore the
protests against rezoning as you did in 1988 you will be creating a
less desirable neighborhood with lower property values. The
tax-assessment dept. will be kept busy adjusting to the low
oft. assessment requests. 10. In talking to my neighbors, I found them
to be very opposed to changing the zoning to accommodate a social
club. We have a natural barrier already in place between
residential and business. It is called I-275. Let's keep it that
way. Most of the signers of the petition intended on being present
at the meeting on October 16, 1990 to present their views to the
Planning Commission in person. Please listen to our views. We're
proud of Livonia. I have signed my name to it. I am the one who
circulated the petition. I did go to 36 different homes. I have
32 signatures against the rezoning of this property. Thank you.
Cecil Bauers, 38809 Roycroft: Ron Erwin has presented an excellent list and
covered virtually everything I was going to say. However, I have
owned this property since 1970 and raised 7 children and it is a
wonderful quiet residential neighborhood with well kept homes.
Since I have been a resident there I have seen Five Mile widened,
I have seen I-96 go in, I-275 built, the tremendous amount of
building. What I am saying is I can sit on my deck at night in the
summertime and hear a roar. Earlier tonight someone mentioned
quality of life. Yes, my neighborhood has suffered its quality of
life. If this development goes in or, I will go one step further,
even if office buildings go in, I ask this Commission what about
the noise pollution? I think we have had enough in our
neighborhood. I don't know if it is your responsibility or the
Nr.
11338
State of Michigan to put up these massive sound walls. They did it
on the south side of Five Mile Road. All we have are the trees.
All I am going to talk about is the noise from the cars and the
trucks and I think we have had enough.
Nu. Henrietta Beck, 15401 Knolson: I believe the two gentlemen before me basically
expressed my feelings also. I feel that a business which promotes
social gatherings is not appropriate for a residential area. The
minor problems we have experienced in the parking lot behind the
church, which is noise, teenagers, Friday and Saturday night
drinking, will only be compounded with a social gathering that is
going to allow alcohol to be consumed on the premises. The traffic
here also would be a concern. Alcohol is going to be consumed and
Five Mile is going to be very difficult to exit with the overpass
of 275. My other concern is the property value will definitely
decrease and I am sure you people will take that into consideration
for assessment purposes.
Earl Goetsch, 15255 Knolson: I am one of the signers of the petition objecting to
the rezoning and I object on the reasons that the first speaker
mentioned.
Jim Hinkel, 15152 Adams Ct. : My main objection that I have to this area, and I
don't think it has been brought up yet, is the overpass on the
expressway is all downhill so any left turns onto Adams Ct. coming
from the west will be coming over the overpass and into these
driveways to the church and you have a criss-crossing pattern and
no matter what you zone this for, you have a criss-cross and a
dangerous spot right here. This should be taken into
consideration. I think if you allow a social club there will be an
increased amount of traffic and this is a very bad spot coming over
the overpass.
**8:40 - Brenda Lee Fandrei entered the meeting at this time.
Mitchell Drag, 15239 Adams Ct. I live on the opposite side of the property on
Adams Ct. and Eckles Road. It is a very active corner. I have
Plymouth Township and Northville police flagging cars and they pull
them around the bend and they flash their lights right into my
house continually from 11:00 p.m. until 4:00 in the morning. One
time I went out through the garage to see what the commotion was
and I got penalized because they thought I had complained. I
suffered the consequences of a broken window and flagpole and other
things damaged. That is besides the point. The previous person
mentioned the incline or upcline is horrendous especially in the
winter time. You cannot make any turns inside of any small
congested traffic there. It has been a hazard since I have been
there for 16 years. Number two, entering Livonia from Plymouth and
Northville, you have a beautiful site on both sides. You have
Tiffany Park on the south side and nature on the left. Following
nature you have a nice beautiful church there. In the evening it
has the most beautiful lights and the scenery is all there. I love
nature and I have accepted it for 16 years and I would like for it
to stay and I recommended at the previous meeting with the Council
that Livonia should have some nature too.
11339
Jerry Amey, 16517 Edgewood: I am here as a representative of the church which is
on the property next to this. I am President of the Council of
the church. We have met on two different occasions with Mr.
Tangora and other people from the Italian Club of Livonia and based
°f.• upon those meetings it was the general feeling of the people from
Holy Trinity that we could co-exist with this club. However, we
don't live there. We just attend church there and perhaps if we
did live there, we would have a different view. I can't address
that. Our concern is really one of rezoning this to C-2 or general
business and then similar to the people who were here about the
petition prior to this one, if this club does not get built on this
property and it is rezoned general business or C-2, then what does
the property get used for? Another thing I would like to ask, the
statement was made by Mr. Tangora that they need the facility
because they can't do some of the things they want to do in the
facility they are now in and I was wondering if that is just
wedding receptions that are too large for their facility now or
what would be the uses they would use this for that they can't use
the one they are now in.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, I planned to ask Mr. Tangora that very question.
Quentin Stroebel: I am a resident of Plymouth Township but a member of Holy
Trinity Church and I go along with what Mr. Amey has said and my
concern is for the radical change in the zoning. Radical in the
sense that C-2 gives you a whole lot more leeway than I think the
congregation could live with. If there were some way to not make
that radical change and have some conditional use where some built
in limitations and conditions could be made, we could be able to
live with it a little better.
Mr. Engebretson: As heard in the previous case sir, it is not possible for us to
condition zoning. There is some question as to whether some
covenants could be entered into and we are going to be looking into
that but we cannot condition zoning.
Jim Winters, 15467 Knolson: I am opposed to the rezoning and I have signed the
petition against it. The wind from the west carries the noise from
the expressway and you can come sit on any one of our patios and
listen to that noise from the expressway. Now with parties there
and different functions going on I am sure it is going to be more
intensified plus the church has a playground and a ball field in
the back. It is only a natural thing for a club, such as this, to
wander over and use that ball field, which is right in the back of
our homes, and making it more used than it is now. Right now it
has very limited use.
Richard Yannatta, 15445 Knolson: I am here to let you know there are a lot of
things I want to tell you tonight but everything has already been
said. I am here to support Ron and everyone else that came up here
tonight. I am behind them 100%. I just wanted to let you people
and everyone else that came up here ahead of me know I am behind
them.
Walter Koltunchik, 38804 Lancaster: I moved into the neighborhood about six years
ago. I am a retiree from the City of Detroit. I worked for 38 1/2
11340
years for the City of Detroit. It seems to me that this piece of
property, at one time, was a surplus piece from the I-275. In the
deed there was probably a restriction as to limited access, which
was mentioned by the Planning Commission. If you have a wedding
with 500 guests in that place and you have a 20 foot access limited
`" by deed from the State Highway Department, how are all these cars
going to come in and out? It is bad enough with the steep grade to
get cars in there if you had 50 feet of driveway. If this is a
surplus piece, there will not be more than 20 feet of limited
access into that piece of property unless they use the church
property.
Mr. Engebretson: John, are you aware of any such restrictions?
Mr. Nagy: I know the access is restricted but to what extent there is no
documentation.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is RE now. If somebody wanted to build a research and
engineering facility, they are allowed to do that at this time. It
is zoned that way and all they have to do is bring a site plan
before us. There is a possibility that something is going to be
built there one of these days.
Mr. LaPine: To the representative of the church. Has your congregation ever
thought of purchasing that piece of property?
Mr. Amey: Not that I am aware of.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have a fellowship hall in your church?
Now
Mr. Amey: Yes we do.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have wedding receptions?
Mr. Amey: Occasionally but it is quite small.
Mr. LaPine: Do you rent out the facility?
Mr. Amey: No.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask you about that earlier comment that you made
that you are looking to do this so that you can do things that you
can't do presently.
Mr. Tangora: Renting the hall. We can't do that in our present facility because
it is in a residential neighborhood and we have to abide by the
ordinance. With the ordinance of the City of Livonia the only
place we can rent a facility like that is in a commercial zoning.
I would like to mention we did meet with the church board. They
were very gracious to meet with us. We met with them to let them
know what our intentions were and we have assured them, and I think
the club has a lot of credibility for being here the preevious 13
years and I think our reputation is good in the City and when we
say we are going to build a clubhouse, that is what we intend to
do. We have assured the church that we, like Mr. Roskelly, would
'ew put in deed restrictions when we bought the property so it would be
used strictly for our clubhouse.
11341
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora, I guess we all would take you at your word at that.
I guess I would like to commend you for meeting with the church
relative to your plans but I am wondering if you had similar
meetings with the neighbors?
'+\r
Mr. Tangora: I have not contacted them myself. The owner of the property is
here tonight and he made an attempt to contact the residents and he
can answer that.
Daniel Arnold, 5858 Tabor Drive, West Bloomfield: I did contact Mr. Erwin several
days prior to this meeting to ask him if he was interested in
participating in a meeting. He said it was too late that he had
already submitted his petition and that he was against it. He gave
me the number of people that were against it and I said fine if you
did not want to see me or Mr. Tangora for a previous meeting, that
was his decision.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Arnold, how long have you owned that property?
Mr. Arnold: Approximately five years.
Mr. Tent: Have you had any feelers for the RE development? Has anybody
approached you?
Mr. Arnold: We have had several inquiries but that is all.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-1-22 closed.
`rr On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
#10-465-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
16, 1990 on Petition 90-8-1-22 by Charles Tangora for Italian Club of
Livonia & Dan Arnold requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Five Mile Road, east of the I-275 Freeway in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 18 from RE to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-8-1-22 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan which designates the subject site for low density
residential land use.
2) That the proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area which are primarily
residential.
3) That the proposed change of zoning would provide for uses that would
tend to overburden the area with additional vehicular traffic.
4) That there is no demonstrated need for additional commercial uses in the
area which would be permitted by the proposed change of zoning.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
N." #543, as amended.
11342
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann, Kluver
ABSTAIN: Fandrei
Nor ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-9-1-23 by Jerry Brady for A. DelGuidice requesting to rezone property
located on the northeast corner of Bretton & Middlebelt in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 1 from OS to C-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the rezoning proposal. We have also
received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to this petition, however they do maintain overhead lines
on this property that would conflict with any construction.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Jerry Brady, 4578 Coachmaker, Bloomfield Hills: The reason I am here is because on
behalf of Mr. DelGuidice I am optionee on the property subject to
zoning. We at Richardsons, Inc. , of which I am a principal of,
look for niches and needs and since there is a tremendous office
ry
glut throughout the whole metropolitan area and C-1 is one step up
from office service, the impaction would be somewhat the same on
the general area. That is why we asked for that because there is
probably a need for it. We have had some inquiries from people and
there isn't much need for office service. That is why we are here
tonight. I have approached the property owners around me, at least
the one to the east of Lot 446, which I impact the most. I
certainly don't want to fight City Hall, I want to get along with
them.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Brady, you indicated you would like to see C-1 zoning which is
one step above the office type zoning and that would satisfy you.
Is that correct?
Mr. Brady: Yes because there are some service things that are
quasi-commercial.
Mr. Tent: Are you familiar with the general area?
Mr. Brady: Yes I am.
Mr. Tent: Than you will probably notice that we have a lot of C-1 within the
City that is vacant.
Mr. Brady: Not in that area.
11343
Mr. Tent: What is happening is the merchants will come back in after they get
the C-1 and they say they can't rent it as C-1, they need more
intensive commercial so they want C-2.
'`,. Mr. Brady: I will never come back to you for C-2.
Mr. Tent: You indicated you had some inquiries. Can you tell me what type of
business?
Mr. Brady: Until we have zoning, we can't really get users committed but we
have some things that are not represented typically in Livonia. I
am aware there are some things in southern Livonia that are vacant
but as we said we look for niches and we feel this close proximity
to the mall, it probably would be a good use. It would be in the
immediate future a better use than OS would be in the long term.
Mr. Tent: I am just speaking from our experience with the C-1.
Mr. Brady: I think I could get along with C-1.
Mr. Tent: I want you to be aware we have C-1 that is vacant.
Mr. Brady: I am very aware of that and I wouldn't waste my time or the time of
anyone else if I didn't think I could make a success out of C-l.
Mr. LaPine: I am not in favor of your proposal and I will tell you why. If
that goes C-1 that close to the high school, the people who have
those stores are going to cater to the high school kids. You are
going to have a pizza place. You are going to have a yogurt place.
'4011. Anything that caters to the kids. I can't say that is wrong but it
is going to cause all kinds of problems for the people in that area
if a strip mall goes in with those types of stores. Therefore, I
could never go for anything there but the OS that is there now.
Mr. Brady: I believe that C-1 prohibits food service.
Mr. LaPine: Carry-out pizza and yogurt and those kinds of things will be
allowed. Anything that would go in that close to that high school
is going to cater to high school kids.
Mr. Brady: I can't deny that. We don't have that in mind at this point. It
is not our intention to have this type of situation but there are
no guarantees.
Mr. McCann: I would like to agree with Mr. LaPine's analysis as well and
further to me it is still a residential area in there. You have
residential across the street and residential behind you. You have
public land to the north. One of the problems we have in the City,
we are getting a reputation for having so many strip malls. It is
not something I believe we are lacking. I believe we are lacking
in day care centers, senior citizens housing but not malls and I
would not want to venture into a residential area with commercial
at this time. As you say it is across the street and down the
street but at least we have the zoning stopped right there and to
continue it further into residential, I don't think it would be
�" prudent.
11344
Mr. Brady: I would like to bring it to Mr. McCann's attention that this is not
a rezoning petition from residential to commercial. It is from
office service to a commercial and the impaction will be almost the
same as a buffer and when I come back with my elaborate landscape
Now plans, I think I have some cooperation from the neighbors to the
east where I will have a buffered wall. I think the thing between
C-1 and OS is quite similar. It is already there. It exists on
the map. I am not going from a residential use to a business or
commercial use. It already is a business use from a zoning
standpoint.
Mr. McCann: I understand that but there are homes there and it is residential
and I don't think it is appropriately zoned as it is.
Mr. Morrow: I think the point here is we are intensifying the zoning as opposed
to leaving it or downgrading it. We are really not short of
commercial in that given area. We might even be a little bit long
on office service also in the City but that is already there. My
view is I don't want to intensify it in any way particularly as it
abuts public land, schools, etc.
Lynn Seaton, 29105 Bretton: Presently I see no demonstrable reason to change that
to C-l. Within one-half mile there are 32 vacant store fronts not
including that huge molar that sticks up out of the ground, the
Livonia Pavillion. The area of Sections 1 and 2 are historically
much older because of their proximity to Eight Mile and Seven Mile.
When the suburban sprawn came through in the 40's that was one of
the first areas to be hit so most of your homes there have been
built between 46 and 55. At this point, unfortunately, they are
Now becoming marginal. Another strip would not enhance the area
especially with the school traffic and the mall traffic. I think
it would make congestion. Three of you gentlemen have already
mentioned the deteriorating effect of paper and plastic articles
being blown around. It has already happened in that neighborhood.
It is not in the future. It is in the present. Livonia does not
need the tax base for that C-1 and they do not need harassment.
They don't need the expense of the protective services that would
go into that area. One more policeman on duty, one more call, etc.
It adds up to more money. What we need in that area is something
to raise the local environment not deteriorate it. I personally
find it hard to understand and rationalize during this downturn of
economics how anyone can consider building something anywhere right
now unless they know more than we do. Having looked at your item
number 7, Petition 90-8-6-6, I look upon that prospect with a
little trepidation that if that were passed tonight allowing
carry-out restaurants and limited service restaurants in C-1, that
at 1:00 this morning Taco Johns would be on the architects board.
Sharon Mogan, 29227 Bretton: We would be directly across the street from the
change of zoning. Currently there are two rentals there. They are
deteriorating. They are somewhat of an eyesore but a commercial
property would not improve that. We have children here with us.
They play in front of our homes. There would be driveways coming
out, traffic, late hours, parking lots and our home backs up to
11345
Cantora's Market now and we get all kinds of garbage and trash.
Everything is thrown over the wall into our yard. They are getting
better about it but the neighborhood is already trashed from the
mall. I don't think my neighbors would have a problem with
changing the zoning to R-1 and putting homes in there but certainly
C-1 does not belong in that area.
Mike Mogan, 29227 Bretton: We have had quite a bit of problems with Cantora's
Market. I don't know how much garbage I cleaned up including beer
bottles and other things like that. I caught teenagers drinking
beer and eating pizza by the slice during their lunch hour from the
high school and that is a problem that goes on all the time. One
of the things I wanted to point out is that I, as one of the
homeowners most directly affected, have not been contacted by
anyone about the plans no matter how hazy they might be about what
might be put in there. I only know one homeowner that was
contacted and I understand there were quite a few promises made to
him about landscaping and other kinds of considerations. I believe
that is Lot 446 on the map. We would be sandwiched between two
businesses. My children play out in the yard. We were told that
an access driveway could be put in from Bretton into whatever is
going to be put there. I don't think that is a good idea because
of the traffic problem. We have a lot of school kids in this
general area already and we are concerned about property values. I
talked to some neighbors and had we known the situation even with
the office service it might have put a question in our mind about
buying there in the first place. I am not sure just how well
suited this is to be converted into C-1 but I think it would be a
very adverse kind of thing relative to our ability to sell our home
e in the future. As was pointed out there are several vacant stores
in the immediate areas. We have many fast food carry out
restaurants, video stores within five or ten minutes driving
distance as it is. That is why I am opposing this proposal.
Lynne Heslip, 29237 Bretton: I don't want to repeat everything that Mr. and Mrs.
Mogan have said because I agree 100%. We have enough problems as
it is with children at this time who should be in school, who are
not. They are playing in the woods and around the properties that
are already there. We have enough problems with litter, using our
street as a drag strip. We were never notified by anyone that this
motion was up until we received the notice from the City. We
understand that one resident had been made certain promises. As I
said, no one has discussed this with us. We feel that Livonia in
itself has so many strip malls, so many small business and so many
vacant businesses. There are so many more properties that could be
utilized rather than across the street from where our children
play. There has been talk of a video store, which would mean all
hours traffic in and out, and the things that go on behind the
building. We all know what things take place in areas like that.
We feel that with the taxes we pay that we don't deserve this kind
of stuff. That is why I am opposed to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Just so there is no misunderstanding, the City giving you notice
is really the proper way for you to be notified. The petitioner
does not have any obligation to do that. It is in his best
interest but he does not have an obligation to do that.
11346
Kim Skrip, 19738 Middlebelt: I am directly next to Cantora's Party Store and I am
a new resident. I have only been there four months. I was
informed by my neighbors of what was going to happen. Right now I
agree with the gentleman who stated it would be catering to the
children of the high school if this was made into a C-1 lot. I am
a perfect example of that because my house is right on Middlebelt.
Any time there is a break in the school hours or lunch hour, the
kids come down to Cantora's store and buy whatever they are going
to buy and they litter all over my property, all over the store's
property and all the way back to the school. That is the big thing
and also I think if it was changed to C-1, it would give kids a
good reason to skip school and I think the party store next door to
me does that enough. I would just like to say I am opposed to it.
Terry Treanor, 29215 Bretton: My husband and I have lived there for three months
and had we known it was zoned office space, we would probably not
have bought it, but we did and we live there and that is my home
and I see no reason to have any stores put in there for the simple
reason that we all have kids. We don't need the distraction from
the kids in the high school. Basically if I were to go on I would
just be repeating what everyone else has said. I do oppose. I
feel there is no more need for it.
Steve Heslip, 29237 Bretton: My wife spoke earlier. We have just been up to here
already with the amount of trash and litter that has been thrown
all over our lot and to see it come right across the street from
us. We look out the back and we see a commercial lot. We look out
the front, at least we can see a woods. Our kids like to play in
the front yard and to me that is not conducive for kids to grow up
vr. and see nothing but pavement all around them. We are ready to pack
up and leave right now. I did not know it was zoned office space
either when I moved in there. Had I known, I probably would have
given it another thought about moving in there.
Oscar Cox, 29204 Bretton: This is the only lot adjacent to this property. I don't
see any reason why they couldn't do something about that. It has
been 13 years the kids go over there and get their pizza rolls and
head for that woods and they leave all their garbage in the woods.
I am not opposed to this. I think it would better the
neighborhood.
Mr. Tent: Oscar, are you Lot 446?
Mr. Cox: Yes.
Mr. Tent: Then you have met with the petitioner? Can you indicate what he
has said he will do for you?
Mr. Cox: I have talked to him. The house adjacent to me has been
condemned. Someone came down here and talked with the City. The
whole thing is a big eyesore. The landowner would never fix up the
property. Right now there is about 70 feet from the back of my
property nothing but weeds, brush, etc. If they gets these woods
down, maybe the kids would stay out.
11347
Mr. Engebretson: My only comment Mr. Brady is I think we are about to save you some
money and aggravation. You said there really isn't any shortage of
retail space, in particularly the C-1 zoning, in that particular
area. It is my understanding that you were under the impression
'gory that there were other areas of the community where there may, in
fact, be an abundance of C-1 space that is vacant but you weren't
aware that was the case in this particular neighborhood. The fact
of the matter is, there is a great deal of retail space within less
than a mile right down the street. On Middlebelt we recently had
a case where we had a strip center owner plead poverty and dispair
that he just couldn't function in a C-1 zoning and this Commission,
after exhaustive investigation, denied that petition. However, the
City Council, in its wisdom, saw fit to override our decision and
did grant the C-2 zoning and it is still vacant. There is a lot of
excess space. I can also tell you that should this petition be
approved, that it is almost guaranteed that you will find the
necessity to come back to look for C-2 zoning and it is also fair
to let you know in advance that there is almost no chance of that
being successful because of the fact that there is just a run on
this kind of a problem right now. We just don't want to set up a
situation where we zone the whole City C-2 for all the reasons that
you have heard here tonight. These strip centers in the right
neighborhoods serve a very valuable purpose in the right place.
They definitely do not work to the benefit of the City and they
certainly don't serve the community well in terms of preserving the
health, safety and welfare of the neighborhoods and of the
residents. I would be glad to give you an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Brady: I would like to say in the C-1 zoning I would never be back. You
have to have a big enough center where you can have the right
tenant mix. Tenant mix is important. You can't mix apples with
oranges. I wasn't aware of Item number 7 on the agenda. I think
we are getting rid of an eyesore. There is going to be some
impaction. I just thought I would talk to Mr. Cox because he was
impacted the most. I think it is up to us as petitioners to take
the risk. Just because someone else failed doesn't mean we can't
succeed. We came here at the request of Mr. DelGuidice. We feel
the niche is there. We think we can make it work. I think the
impaction on the neighborhood already exists. I don't plan to have
a party store there.
Mrs. Fandrei: In the two years I have been on the Commission one of the comments
I have heard the most from the residents is the concern about the
overdevelopment of shopping strips and I believe this area is well
served with the malls that are there presently and I don't think it
is good planning for us to go ahead and approve a strip in this
area and for that reason I have to vote against the petition.
Mr. Tent: You indicated your intention would be never to come back for C-2
zoning and you could live with the C-1 but I have seen cases here
within the City where the developer couldn't live with the C-1 and
the people in the neighborhood have a vested interest. You could
sell that property as C-1 to another developer and let him worry
about it and he may come before us and say I need C-2 zoning to go
11348
ahead and survive so for me I consider this speculative zoning at
this time. I don't think it is good for that area. I have
compassion for the neighbors for the problems that come up and you
can't guarantee that you wouldn't come back. So based on that I do
`, have a concern and I can't vote in favor of this.
Mr. Brady: It is in close proximity to a regional mall in Livonia. Maybe you
put the other one in the wrong place.
Mr. Morrow: This is to our newest residents in Livonia that just bought the
property there that should this petition fail and should somewhere
down the line an office use be proposed, this Commission will make
every effort to put something in there that will co-exist with the
neighborhood and meet the ordinance with landscaping and everything
so I don't want you to think we are going to let you down at that
level.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-9-1-23 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-466-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
90-9-1-23 by Jerry Brady for A. DelGuidice requesting to rezone property
located on the northeast corner of Bretton & Middlebelt in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 1 from OS to C-1, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-9-1-12 be denied
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the Future
Land Use Plan which designates the subject site for office use.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
already prevalent in the area.
3) That there is no demonstrated need for additional commercial
services in this area of the City.
4) That the proposed change of zoning will be 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
90-9-2-32 by Vicki Castaneda requesting waiver use approval to remodel
and expand 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 24.
11349
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 Fire Marshal's office stating
they have no objection to this proposal. We have also received a
letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal is acceptable,
however, the Five Mile sidewalk should be extended to the Harrison
roadway. They also note that no dumpster provision is shown. We
also have received a letter from Allie F. Fayz stating Harrison
Square Plaza and its tenants support the extension and remodeling
of the Old Mexico Restaurant. He states that this will enhance the
area and is clearly needed to accommodate the community. Also in
our file is a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to this petition.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Lawrence Friedman, 24901 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield: I am an attorney
representing the petitioner in this matter. (Mr. Friedman
presented the plans to the Commission) The only problem I have
with the wording of the petition is it is an expansion. Not
really. Physically there is an addition of 12 feet of a lower
level building than what exists and narrower to what exists solely
to put in a new walk-in freezer. That is the only addition to this
building. Incorporated with that the dumpster would be moved. It
would be relocated behind this and then screened pursuant to the
ordinance. One of the other concerns I know the board will have is
with regards to more parking, more seating, etc. Not the case with
this petition. As a matter of fact, we are going to lose a couple
of seats. There will only be 32 seats to comply with your
ordinance. The reason is that when we take the 12 feet for the
cooler, we will lose two parking spaces right behind the building
so in order to meet the ordinance we actually have to reduce it by
taking away one table with two chairs so we are not increasing the
density use. Primarily what the proposal is the existing floor
plan in the front stays the same. At the rear, which is currently
the kitchen, there will be a service area and waitresses will be
able to service this area from the new kitchen. There will be two
new restrooms which will allow for handicap access. There will be
storage behind and then the area which is currently a beauty shop
will be remodeled and finished for the new kitchen. Then we have
the rear door to go into the new walk-in cooler. Finally, there
will be a complete remodeling of the outside of the restaurant. If
you have been by the facility, it is something that is badly
needed. The restaurant originally located in this building in
1975. Other than paint and trim, there really has been no total
rehab of this building. The plans call for something in the
neighborhood of $60,000 and $90,000 worth of remodeling. A
tremendous amount of time and money will be spent to upgrade this
facility. Primarily what I want to point out is you currently have
two doors on the outside of the building. It doesn't look good.
The middle door will be eliminated altogether. The rear door will
be replaced with a new steel door. The existing finish will all be
uniform. It is currently painted. The lighting above the
11350
restaurant is the old bare bulb type lights. All of that will be
removed. A new facade will be put on the front roof and the side
of the building to enclose and conceal the air conditioning unit.
That would all be done and then, of course, the new more
''` directional high intensity lights will be put in place. It will
give it a nice cleaner effect. We have the architect here to
address any concerns. From my examination it appears to me that
everything we are asking for complies with the current ordinance
and I don't see any reason why this should cause a problem. It is
going to be an improvement to the area.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Friedman, you didn't mention anything regarding landscaping,
did you?
Mr. Friedman: I did not.
Mrs. Fandrei: Did you have any additions to what is presently there? What is
presently there is very attractive.
Mr. Friedman: The only thing we would want to do is add, not detract. We took
note of the fact that the Planning Department recommended extension
of the sidewalk. That is not a problem.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am just asking if you have any additional landscaping plans.
Mr. Friedman: Not currently.
Franco DiMattia, 13732 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn: I am the architect. I looked at
the building. We studied it. It obviously needs a more uniform
`r_ly look to the building and we tried to design it so with a new facade
increasing the height of it we can encumber a softer treatment on
top of the roof which would be brand new and different because the
kitchen would be brand new obviously. Overall the look would be
probably more modern. We are eliminating the arch. We are
creating more of a modern look to blend in with the City of
Livonia. We seem to be pretty much in agreement with whatever code
wise is required. If you have any questions, we will be glad to
answer them.
Mr. Tent: Are you going to use that white stucco type material?
Mr. DiMattia: Dryvit. The reason I use the word dryvit, it is a trade name. It
is a stucco type material which is very commonly used today.
Mr. Tent: What color would it be?
Mr. DiMattia: A tan color and then we can accentuate the detailing with a
different color. It should be very attractive.
Mr. Vyhnalek: When you got up there you went right over Mrs. Fandrei's question
about landscaping. Our notes say you have 4.6%. We require 15% so
you are about two-thirds deficient and our notes say something
about landscaping provided in the right-of-way.
11351
Mr. DiMattia: We could do that. You are talking about the street next to us. We
would be more than glad to locate some trees there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is what we are after. We want to get this up to 15%.
401.
Mr. DiMattia: I mentioned this to my client.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think it would be to the best interest of the City of Livonia
that this be validated. This is our only chance to get some more
landscaping.
Mr. DiMattia: We have no objections. We can submit a landscape plan
incorporating the greenbelt with some trees and what you like.
They do like to landscape the place. We wish we had more area to
landscape.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What about the dumpster?
Mr. DiMattia: We are proposing an enclosure right now behind the building with a
six foot wall and accessible from the parking lot side where it is
not visible from anywhere. There is a concrete wall at the south
side of the alley. The location I would be proposing for the
enclosure of the dumpster is perfect.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is this what is taking up the extra two parking spaces?
Mr. DiMattia: Yes sir.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, that is on the plan and you are satisfied with the
Nor
dumpster?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Is the dumpster behind the walk-in cooler?
Mr. DiMattia: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Will the walk-in cooler be built in such a way that it will look
like part of the building?
Mr. DiMattia: Yes. We are enclosing it within a wall.
Mr. LaPine: Are you going to repave the parking lot?
Mr. DiMattia: Yes we have to.
Mr. LaPine: On your parking, according to the notes I haves you are going to
supply 20 parking spaces, 17 for customers and 3 for employees. It
is hard for me to believe you only have three employees. I know
you are trying to get a liquor license. I don't know if you will
be successful or not with that but assuming you get the liquor
license, you have a bartender, you have a cook and you have one
waitress. That is the only three employees?
11352
Mr. DiMattia: If they get the liquor license, it is not a sit down bar. It is
just a service bar. They cannot support a liquor license. The
liquor license itself today is a liability. It is not an asset.
They will not even have a full time bartender.
New
Mr. LaPine: You are not going to have a bar with stools?
Mr. DiMattia: No. Consumption of alcohol in restaurants, even Mexican
restaurants, used to be very popular and now it is going down a
lot. As a matter of fact liquor license costs have gone down in
the last few years.
Mr. LaPine: You are not going to have a bar where people are going to set while
they are waiting for a carry-out order, then they are going to have
to park their car. I just want to make sure you are not going to
have a bar.
Mr. Friedman: It is true that the other facility the petitioners have in West
Bloomfield has a liquor license and does not have any stools or
anything like that. It is strictly a service bar with the same
waitress that serves the meal and the same cook makes the drinks
and gives them to the waitress. There is no plan ever in this
facility that would allow us to have room for just liquor. The
primary business is food.
Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of the operation?
Mr. Friedman: 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 11:00 a.m.
until 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
Mrs. Fandrei: Back to the landscaping. I want to be sure that your petitioner
understands that the landscaping that is put in the right-of-way is
their responsibility to maintain and it seems like they have
thought about landscaping that area. To what degree?
Mr. Friedman: First let me address the concerns. Part of the problem with this
particular site is the parking. The area where this property abuts
the neighboring property are contiguous asphalt lots. We don't
have the ability to landscape on two of four sides. With what we
have left we certainly are in favor of adding as much to the
greenbelt as this Commission wants. I would venture to say that we
would probably put more in than you ask us to. It is not a problem
given the amount of dollars we expect to put in this place, a few
more thousand for landscaping is negligible.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the repaving and striping of the parking lot on the site plan?
Mr. Shane: The striping is on the site plan but there are no notes per se
which says it will be repaved.
Mr. Engebretson: I think it needs to be patched up.
Mr. Friedman: The relocation of the dumpster. Where the dumpster currently is
there is a real bad area so that is not just a patching and again
11353
the area that we are redoing, I know that incorporated into the
estimate that they got of the total cost includes a resurfacing. I
don't know if they are going to dig it out and lay new asphalt but
it certainly is going to be top coated and striped.
Mr. Engebretson: Did I understand you to have addressed the HVC issue relative to
screening?
Mr. DiMattia: This is on the existing roof now. We are extending that. We are
adding 4 feet more to screen all of our equipment and we will
incorporate three sides of building as part of the design.
Mr. Engebretson: Relative to the relocation of this kitchen area, Mexican happens
to be my favorite food and so it wouldn't bother me if there were
odors of Mexican food coming out into the parking area but is there
any changes to be made that will be putting additional odors into
the neighborhood?
Mr. DiMattia: Nothing more than the standard restaurant we would have here.
Mr. Kluver: Since this is a waiver use and obviously the site plan goes with
the waiver, it might be fitting if we take five or ten minutes to
look at sheets 1, 2 and 3 basically to make sure we have covered
all the items. Obviously this project has taken many hours of
effort to be upgraded to this level and I certainly think another
five or ten minutes wouldn't impact it. I certainly would
recommend that.
Mr. DiMattia presented the three pages of plans to the Commission.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-9-2-32 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-467-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
90-9-2-32 by Vicki Castaneda requesting waiver use approval to remodel
and expand 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 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 90-9-2-32 be approved subject to a
variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for an addition to
a non-conforming building and to the following additional conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 10-12-90 marked Sheet 1 prepared by Franco
Mario DiMattia, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3 prepared by Franco
Mario DiMattia, Architect which is hereby approved shall be adhered
to.
3) That the maximum number of customer seats shall be limited to 32 as
depicted on the Floor Plan marked Sheet 2 prepared by Franco Mario
DiMattia, Architect.
11354
4) That a Landscape Plan showing additional landscape treatment of the
adjacent road right-of-ways shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for its approval within 30 days of the date of this
resolution.
5) That the parking area shall be resurfaced and restriped.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-7-3-7
by Ken Dillon proposing to vacate the alley located north of Joy Road
between Hugh and Fremont Streets in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
since there appears to be existing Detroit Edison facilities within
the alley in question, it is recommended that an easement for
public utilities be retained over the full width of the alley to be
vacated. In addition, it is the obligation of the adjacent
property owners to remove the concrete alley approach west from
Fremont Avenue (if removal is desired). Further, it will be the
obligation of the adjacent property owners to place the missing
section of public walk on the east side of Hugh Avenue in the area
of the alley to be vacated. We have also received a letter from
Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to this vacating
provided easements are reserved the full width of the existing
street/alley to protect their existing equipment.
Dallas Hudie, 8850 Hugh: I am opposed to having that alley closed. We have
maintained it ever since we have been there. (She passed the
pictures to the Commissioners)
Mr. Engebretson: I assumed you were the petitioner. Is the petitioner here?
Mrs. Hudie: The petitioner has moved. My husband and I maintained this area
all along.
11355
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I am having a hard time understanding why this
individual wants to vacate if he has departed the area.
Mrs. Hudie: He has moved out and most of the people that live on Joy Road are
is. renters. They are not owners.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you have any ideas?
Mr. Nagy: The petition that went to the City Council requesting the vacation
indicates "Council Members: I am writing you to ask that the city
of Livonia vacate the public alley behind our homes. The alley is
not used as an alley any more nor are there any accessable spots
for the homeowners. I also note the hassle of walking around the
block to maintain the alley, and the safety risks to children
playing in their own yard with people able to cut through the alley
for not everyone is trustworthy nowadays. I would like to also
note that this alley is one of the last three blocks on Joy Road
where the city has not yet vacated the alley. Your help in closing
off the alley and allowing us to move our fences back would be
greatly appreciated." This was signed by a Ken Dillon who gives
his address as 29524 Joy Road. It is also signed by Gene, and I
can't read his last name, who gives his address as 29512 Joy Road,
a Kathy Smith who gives her address as 8851 Fremont, a Dan Russo
who gives his address as 29544 Joy Road and James R. Gysel who
gives his address as 29518 Joy Road, signed as co-petitioners.
Ms. Hudie: Kathy Smith, her fiance is the owner. They also maintain the
alley. They maintain their end and we maintain our end. There are
no children going through there during the daytime, maybe once in a
_.► while. I see no reason why it should be closed. We keep it up and
it looks like a park down through there. The alley right across
the street from us on Hugh, that is open also.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Chairman, it sounds to me like we need to look into this a
little bit further. I would like to propose that we table this
until we do a little more research on it and find out where the
petitioners are and we could maybe look at it at our next study
meeting.
Mr. Gniewek: By vacating the alley we are not changing the status of what is
already existing there. All we are doing is turning that property
over to the adjacent property owners.
Ms. Hudie: What they are going to do, they are going to move those fences over
closer and those people are not maintaining their yards.
Mr. Gniewek: What happens is you get more property. You don't shorten the
property. You get additional property.
Ms. Hudie: When they move their fence over, that is going to put all those
grapevines and berry bushes over to my side. They don't maintain
it. It is going to grow right over on my side of the fence.
Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like she has it all now and she is going to wind up
with half so it is a step back.
11356
Mr. LaPine: I don't understand what you are saying. If the alley is vacated,
you get half and your neighbor gets half. Now if your neighbor
moves their fence to the center, how are they going to move their
grapevine?
Ms. Hudie: The way it is now we both have fences coming into the alley in the
middle. Their berry bushes are growing into the alley. We keep it
up as much as we can. If we put our fences together, those are
going to come right over because they are not going to clean them
up. They haven't cleaned them up in thirty years so they aren't
going to clean them up now.
Mr. LaPine: You have a piece of property. This is the alley. So his property
and your property ends here. If you move your property to the
center and he moves his, he is not moving the vines.
Ms. Hudie: His vines are going to grow out like they do now.
Mr. LaPine: They may grow but you were saying they are going to be over in your
yard. They may but there is nothing we can do about that. If they
grow on your side, you can cut them off that's all. Unfortunately
I did not go out and look at this property so I guess I have to
agree with Mrs. Fandrei, maybe we should table this until we can go
out and look at it.
Mrs. Fandrei: I would like to make a tabling motion until our next study meeting
and request that the petitioner attend that meeting.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
"'' Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-7-3-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-468-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
16, 1990 on Petition 90-7-3-7 by Ken Dillon proposing to vacate the
alley located north of Joy Road between Hugh and Freemont Streets in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 90-7-3-7 until the study meeting of October
23, 1990.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code
of Ordinances.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-8-6-5
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 3.01 of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to change the name of the
P.S. district to OS and to list the three new zoning districts, NP,
Nature Preserves; R-C, Condominium Residential; and R-8C, High Rise
Condominium Residential.
11357
Mr. Engebretson: This is a City Planning Commission petition so Mr. Nagy if you
could explain what is happening here please.
Mr. Nagy: This is a language amendment to the text of the zoning ordinance
that would show a language change with respect to the office
district regulations. Prior to this proposed amendment, the office
districts were known as professional service. Due to a recent
change whereby the permitted use section of that ordinance has been
changed to allow general offices by right as opposed to a
limitation of professional, the name of the district has also been
changed to office services as opposed to professional services so
this language change would change the title of that section to
reflect the new language and also it would incorporate in other
appropriate sections of the ordinance the new approved
classifications of nature preserves, residential condominiums and
high rise residential condominiums. It is an attempt to bring the
text of the zoning ordinance current with the newly adopted
ordinances of the City of Livonia.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-6-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-469-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
16, 1990 on Petition 90-8-6-5 by the City Planning Commission to
Nor determine whether or not to amend Section 3.01 of Zoning Ordinance #543
so as to change the name of the P.S. district to OS and to list the
three new zoning districts, NP, Nature Preserves; R-C, Condominium
Residential; and R-8C, High Rise Condominium Residential, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 90-8-6-5 be approved for the following reason:
1) That the proposed amendment will keep the printed text of the
Zoning Ordinance current with new language amendments recently
adopted by the City Council
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-8-6-6
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 10.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to provide for the addition
of Carry-Out Restaurants and Limited Service Restaurants as waiver uses
in the C-1 zoning district.
Mr. Engebretson: Again, this is a City Planning Commission petition resulting from
an action directed by the City Council. Mr. Nagy, if you would
`'r► please explain this petition.
11358
Mr. Nagy: This proposed amendment will address itself to the waiver use
section of the C-1 zoning district regulations. Currently this
waiver use section of the C-1 does not allow any consumption of
`4411. food or beverages within the premises of a restaurant. Right now
under the current standards of the ordinance there can be no food
such as sandwiches, salads, etc. served at tables and chairs in any
property zoned C-1. The ordinance does however distinguish
confectionaries. With this proposed amendment we are attempting to
provide for under the waiver use special use approval section
limited restaurants that would have a maximum seating capacity of
30 and carry-out food restaurants which would allow up to 12 seats,
which would be subject to waiver use approval by the City Planning
Commission and the City Council to waive restrictions and allow
those kinds of limited services within the C-1 zoning.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make a comment. This action came about as a
result of a request by a petitioner to get a small area of a strip
center rezoned from C-1 to C-2 in order to support a waiver use
that would provide for a limited service restaurant. In the course
of that public hearing held by the City Council which resulted in
that rezoning request, albeit a temporary rezoning which I
understand will, when this action is completed, assuming that it
is, revert back to C-1. I think this is an error. I think we saw
a good example tonight of precisely where the error lies in the C-1
district that was proposed near that high school. We have seen a
number of these issues come before us recently and I think we will
live to regret opening up the limited service restaurant within the
C-1 district. I think we need to keep it confined to the C-2. On
'010m. the other hand, it is pretty clear that the Council wants this to
happen. I think for the reasons I mentioned, we would be well
advised to recommend that they not do this.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree with you 100%.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-8-6-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
90-8-6-6 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to
amend Section 10.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to provide for the
addition of Carry-Out Restaurants and Limited Service Restaurants as
waiver uses in the C-1 zoning district, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-8-6-6 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed amendment will provide for more flexibility in
selecting proper locations for certain types of eating
establishments.
2) That the proposed amendment will still maintain adequate standards
and control over the location and nature of eating establishments
in the hands of the City.
11359
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Tent, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei, Engebretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
Mr. Tent: I too have to agree with the Chairman and our Secretary in this
instance. I would like to retain the restaurant type of business
in the C-2 zoning. I think allowing it the C-1 zoning will open up
a can of worms. I would oppose this.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#10-470-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
90-8-6-6 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to
amend Section 10.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to provide for the
addition of Carry-Out Restaurants and Limited Service Restaurants as
waiver uses in the C-1 zoning district, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-8-6-6 be
denied for the following reasons:
1) It is the opinion of the City Planning Commission that this type of
'tiny eating establishments should remain in the C-2 district and the
ordinance should remain as it presently is.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-9-6-8
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
various sections of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to insert the zoning
designation of OS in place of PS and to add reference to NP, R-C and
R-8C where applicable.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy.
11360
Mr. Nagy: Again, this is a housekeeping chore. Due to some recent changes in
the creation of some new districts, we are looking at the overall
text of the zoning ordinance to make those appropriate changes in
the text language to make appropriate references to the new zoning
fir, classifications and changing the title with respect to the OS
classification. That is to make the ordinance current with the
present day ordinance as adopted by the City Council.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-9-6-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-471-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
16, 1990 on Petition 90-9-6-8 by the City Planning Commission to
determine whether or not to amend various sections of Zoning Ordinance
#543 so as to insert the zoning designation of OS in place of PS and to
add reference to NP, R-C and R-8C where applicable, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
90-9-6-8 be approved for the following reason:
1) That the proposed amendment will keep the printed text of the
Zoning Ordinance current with language amendments recently adopted
by the City Council.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-472-90 RESOLVED that, Petition 90-4-1-11 by the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Council Resolution #320-90, proposing to rezone property
located south of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry Ruff
Road Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from M-1 and RUFA to ML and
R-1, be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
#10-473-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 17,
1990 on Petition 90-4-1-11 by the City Plannig Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #320-90, proposing to rezone property located south
of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Henry Ruff Road in the
11361
Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from M-1 and RUFA to ML and R-1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the portion of this
petition proposing a zoning change from RUFA to R-1 for further study
and does hereby recommend to the City Council that the portion of this
petition proposing a zoning change from M-1 to ML be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed ML district prohibits outside storage of
equipment and material.
2) That the uses permitted in the proposed ML district are fewer and
more restrictive than in the existing M-1 district.
3) That the uses permitted in the proposed ML district are more
compatible to the adjoining residential uses in the area.
4) Any subsequent change in use for any existing building and/or land
area would be required to comply with ML district regulations.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
0543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved,
it was
010-474-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 609th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on October 2, 1990 are approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#10-475-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Permit
Application by Anthony J. Brooks for a satellite disc antenna on
property located at 14545 Richfield in Section 19 for the following
reasons:
1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that this proposal
is in compliance with the general standards set forth in Section
19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) The proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with the
�,�, general aesthetic character of the surrounding area.
11362
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#10-476-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Permit
Application by Ron Wisniewski for a satellite disc antenna on property
located at 9497 Patton in Section 31 for the following reasons:
1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that this proposal
is in compliance with the general standards set forth in Section
19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) The proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with the
general aesthetic character of the surrounding area.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: Gniewek, LaPine,
ABSENT: None
Nor
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-477-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Noonan Sign Company on
behalf of the First of America Bank for two wall signs in the Northridge
Commons Shopping Center at Eight Mile and Farmington be approved subject
to the following condition:
1) That the sign plan for First of America Bank prepared by Robert
Noonan Company and properly documented by the Planning Commission
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
2) That the petitioner has committed there will be no need for any
ground sign at this location.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
fir.
11363
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 610th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on October 16, 1990 was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary ATTEST: (2 k G 1'i e''6 - 6'�
Jack Engebrelison, Chairman
jg
Slaw
tiaar