HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-05-17 10175
MINUTES OF THE 558th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 17, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
`r► 558th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. , with
approximately 75 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski James C. McCann
Donna Naidow R. Lee Morrow
Michael Soranno* William LaPine*
Members absent: Herman Kluver
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and
Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Vyhnalek 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 Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or
a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until
seven days after tonight. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon
their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying
resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome
of rhe hearing tonight.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-1-8 by
Marr:ello Scappatucci to rezone property located south of Ann Arbor Road between Patton
Avenue and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31 from R-1 to C-1 and P.
Mr Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the rezoning proposal. There is also a
letter in our file from Robert and Linda Premo, Earl and Gail Landini
and Mary and Rondi Cripps indicating their strong objection to the
proposal because it would add to present heavy traffic conditions on Ann
Arbor Road; retail businesses placed in area would add to an already
over crowded condition and the children living in the surrounding
subdivisions use Ann Arbor Road to get to and from the Washington
Elementary School. The residents feel they have enough local retail
business to serve their needs and to extend commercial zoning so deeply
into a residential area is very unfair to the people in surrounding
suvdivision and is placing a hardship on the homes that abut the
property as well as lowering the market value of homes in the area.
Since the petitioner was not present at this time, Mr. Vyhnalek stated that Mr.
Scappatucci was thinking of putting in office building and use back part for parking.
He stated at their study meeting they asked Mr. Scappatucci to think it over and make
some changes.
10176
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I have, you indicate you would be going forward with
the public hearing and I think we should look at this strictly as a
rezoning proposal. That must be our final consideration and not only to
go from R-1 to C-1 but also to include R-1 to P. Is that zoning
`411e• appropriate in that particular area.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Strictly, what we are going to talk about is zoning.
Linda Thibert, 9486 Patton: We went through the neighborhood and got a petition
signed. 228 names against the rezoning mainly for all the reasons in
that letter that was read. It is a residential subdivision and if that
property is to be sold, we would like houses built on it instead of
businesses. Plus the traffic problem on Ann Arbor Road.
David Keck, 9243 Knolson: Knolson happens to be the street that continues on down
from that property in question. I would like to put my support to that
letter and be so noted as voting against this. Also we have buildings
on Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail and have yet to be leased. In our
subdivision we have quite a few homes that do not stay on the market
very long and there seems to be a high demand for residential homes in
that area and I would like to see that continue to be developed as
residential as it is in the Joy Road - Hix area. I support that letter
and say I wish the Commission would look at that very closely, keeping
it residential.
Judy McLellan, 39222 Minton: I would like to present an additional aspect. During
the past century the ecological balance of our planet has been damaged
due to our lack of caring and understanding causing polution and
completion of our natural resources. In my opinion another commercial
enterprise would deplete these natural resources more. It would be sad
to lose these living things for a parking lot. In the interest of
ecology, let us retain as much of this as possible by recommending that
this remain residential.
John Raymond, 9384 Marie Court: When this property was originally planned to be
rezoned back in early 70's, Mr. Christensen came to me because they were
going to rezone it all residential, that would put him out of business.
I told him I would like to see him stay in business. I talked my
neighbors to sign that to zone it commercial with the condition that the
back would stay residential. I understand progress goes on. I would
like to see this stay residential. I think there is a definite need for
residential houses in that area. Commercial doesn't bother me out in
front. This is Ann Arbor Road. I don't think that exposure would do
them any good in the back.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you a contractor?
Mr. Raymond: Yes I am.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If that area remains R-1 and there are homes in there, it would have to
go out to Ann Arbor Road.
Mr. Raymond: Correct.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is the existing R-1 zoned area landlocked?
10177
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I have, you indicate you would be going forward with
the public hearing and I think we should look at this strictly as a
rezoning proposal. That must be our final consideration and not only to
go from R-1 to C-1 but also to include R-1 to P. Is that zoning
New appropriate in that particular area.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Strictly, what we are going to talk about is zoning.
Linda Thibert, 9486 Patton: We went through neighborhood and got a petition signed.
228 names against the rezoning mainly for all the reasons in that letter
that was read. It is a residential subdivision and if that property is
to be sold, we would like houses built on it instead of businesses.
Plus the traffic problem on Ann Arbor Road.
David Keck, 9243 Knolson: Knolson happens to be the street that continues on down
from that property in question. I would like to put my support to that
letter and be so noted as voting against this. Also we have buildings
on Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail and have yet to be leased. In our
subdivision we have quite a few homes that do not stay on the market
very long and there seems to be a high demand for residential homes in
that area and I would like to see that continue to be developed as
residential as it is in the Joy Road - Hix area. I support that letter
and say I wish the Commission would look at that very closely, keeping
it residential.
Judy McLellan, 39222 Minton: I would like to present an additional aspect. During
the past century the ecological balance of our planet has been damaged
due to our lack of caring and understanding causing polution and
completion of our natural resources. In my opinion another commercial
enterprise would deplete these natural resources more. It would be sad
to lose these living things for a parking lot. In the interest of
ecology, let us retain as much of this as possible by recommending that
this remain residential.
John Raymond, 9384 Marie Court: When this property was originally planned to be
rezoned back in early 70's, Mr. Christensen came to me because they were
going to rezone it all residential, that would put him out of business.
I told him I would like to see him stay in business. I talked my
neighbors to sign that to zone it commercial with the condition that the
back would stay residential. I understand progress goes on. I would
like to see this stay residential. I think there is a definite need for
residential houses in that area. Commercial doesn't bother me out in
front. This is Ann Arbor Road. I don't think that exposure would do
them any good in the back.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you a contractor?
Mr. Raymond: Yes I am.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If that area remains R-1 and there are homes in there, it would have to
go out to Ann Arbor Road.
Mr. Raymond: Correct.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is the existing R-1 zoned area landlocked.
10178
Mr. King: As far as commercial is concerned, if you have a small commercial with a
large parking area, it seems to me there is going to be quite a number
of cars added to that area. Ingress and egress has to be back to Ann
Arbor Road. The children have to cross Pere right at that spot. With
`om. that size parking, that would be twice as large as building, so there
would be a large amount of cars coming in.
*7:30 Mr. LaPine entered meeting at this time.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You object to both commercial and parking?
Mr. King: Yes I object to both.
Shauqi Mughannem, 9357 Knolson: I object totally due to the fact of the beauty of the
area. It is a very beautiful area. If you would head east, the
buildings are worn down and I am worried it will be the same way to the
west. It is a very nice neighborhood and I want it to remain that way.
Ruth Gluth, 9343 Patton: I would like to ask a question. According to the map we
were sent, the front area that is being rezoned has R-1. Is that going
to remain residential?
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is C-1, all the way across.
Mr. Nagy: That is zoned C-l. The R1 is a tax parcel identification not a zoning
classification. You will notice the C-1 is larger - that is the zoning
classification.
Mrs. Gluth: What I am wondering is they were talking about an access route. How is
he going to get back there. Does he own the whole area?
Mr. Vyhnalek: He owns the whole area. He wants to expand the C-1 so he can put more
buildings and parking in the back but he can rearrange his building if
he wanted to do that.
Mrs. Gluth: We do back up to nursery and we have good rapport with the nursery but I
think there are no barriers up. Would it have to be cement?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Masonry.
Mrs. Gluth: I am definitely against rezoning.
*7:35 - Mr. Soranno entered meeting at this time.
Peter Teich, 9315 Patton: In this area we have had a neighborhood watch and we have
had no problems because of six-foot high fence. If this becomes
commercial, you are going to have problems with people being able to
have access to the area. What type of building is this going to be?
Mr. Vyhnalek: We are really only concerned about zoning, but it would be commercial.
Mr. Teich: The sewer problems. We feel they are not adequate to take on this kind
of load.
10179
Mr. Raymond: It is landlocked now. I would like to see the Christensen family keep
their. promise.
The petitioner, Marcello Scappatucci, entered the meeting at this time.
No..
Marcello Scappatucci, 27505 Ford Road, Garden City: The reason is I need some
of the land for parking. I don't see any other way that the land could
be utilized except by business.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you own property right now?
Mr. Scappatucci: We own property right now. At this point we are not here to say
this is what we want. We would like to have a little input from
residents. We are very flexible. If it is possible maybe you might not
act on it tonight. We can come back. I am sure we could work something
out together where it benefits them and gives us some benefits also.
Madelyn Laffey, 39039 Richland: I am here with neighbors across Ann Arbor Road. We
are opposed because it is a nice residential area and Washington
Elementary is already in danger of closing for lack of students.
Joe Wash, 8874 Pere: I am against any stores or whatever Mr. Scappatucci has in mind.
I would like to see residential homes because you are surrounded by
residential and I don't think anyone wants a parking lot around their
house. We have party store. Chatham has opened and closed about 4
times. It is closed now. We have Stans. The need for another store
does not appear to be there. Traffic is horrendous on Ann Arbor Road.
I am sure that another store would increase that traffic. We also have
low water pressure and a store would probably use more than a few homes.
I think if you want to make people happy, you would build homes here.
Mrs. McGill, 9226 Patton: I am opposed to the commercial part. We have enough
traffic on Ann Arbor Road. When I leave at 15 to 7 the Christensen
Nursery does have semi trucks that have to unload. We do not have the
semi's parking on our residential streets but they are parked on left
hand turn lane and I feel this is a traffic hazard.
Gene Cook, Pere Avenue: I am objecting for the same reasons they are. I want to add
one more thing. There is a lot of traffic on Ann Arbor Road at Ann
Arbor Trail and this will add more. There are a lot of young kids and I
am opposed.
Dekoven King, 38820 Richland: I am opposed to any more commercial in the area because
of increase in traffic. Water pressure is very low in the area. You
can only run one item in your home at one time. You can only use your
dishwasher late at night. The increased traffic would be a burden.
They use Pere as an alternate. Any additional traffic would no doubt
increase that. I ask you recommend rejection.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Most of the people are objecting to commercial. You look on the map
there is also some P for parking. I don't want to make any assumption.
How do you feel about parking?
10180
Dan Lytwyn, 39118 Minton: That is zoned C-1 already. There is a home there right
now. In my calculations, this area you are talking about rezoning, if
you could incorporate it with the property to the north, you could put
almost 40 homes there. As you can see it is all residential now, let's
just keep it that way.
Mark McCartney, 38910 Minton: Our back yard backs up adjacent to the area they want
rezoned from R-1 to P. We are very concerned about that change.
Basically we moved into that area one year ago. At that time it was
very competitive trying to buy a home in that area so we paid top dollar
for our house so we are very concerned about the value of our home if
this area does change. We are also worried about security. Right now
we feel very secure.
Mr. Morrow: As I said in my opening remark we should be talking strictly zoning and
in my conscience I just cannot further encroach the commercial and
parking into the backyards of the neighbors. I think there should never
be commercial in that zone. He cannot condition zoning just as we
cannot condition zoning. I don't think intensified commercial zoning in
that area would be compatible to this area.
Mr. McCann: I would have to agree with Mr. Morrow. The proposed zoning appears to
be wrong for that area. However, I don't know if the area that is
commercial, he can go and build commercial in that area and I would like
to say Mr. Scappatucci has been very congenial trying to figure out what
to do with this property. He wants to work with the neighbors and I
think rather than to cross this off, I would like to see him have the
opportunity to work with the neighbors and see what they want and see if
their goals can be met by him.
Mr. LaPine: I feel the same way as Mr. McCann. At study meeting he said when
neighbors found out they were going to have parking lot in their
backyards, they would be out in droves. He can build in C-1 portion.
If that happens, the man has a piece of property he cannot use. He is
paying the taxes on that property and there should be some way to
compromise. Some people may say the petitioner knew what he was getting
into when he bought the property. I think we should table this. I am
not happy with it but I think there has to be some kind of compromise.
Walter Furman, 39025 Richland: I live right directly across Ann Arbor Road. What my
comment is, you say Mr. Scappatucci is very congenial but once he gets
this approved to commercial, he might change his mind. He might put in
a lot of buildings. We don't know what he will do once he gets it
approved to commercial. He says he pays taxes. We all pay taxes too.
Since this is zoned as residential, it should stay residential. That is
my comment and I think it should be done. First of all they have a lot
of traffic there. From 4:00 am there are trucks waiting to get into
Christensens and there is so much noise. When I first moved there it
was quiet. Now there is so much noise and traffic. When this gentleman
bought this property he knew it was residential so he knew what he was
getting into. We also spent money on our property and we want our
property to have value.
10181
Mr. Scappatucci: First of all I want to answer I am here to try to reach something
that would benefit both parties. The property is already zoned
commercial. We could build and leave the back alone. We have one
individual that wants to purchase this from us for another nursery. I
would like to come up with an answer where we can please each other. I
would like to table it and try to work it out. I am pretty sure we can
work something out. I would like to come to your neighborhood and show
you some plans on what I would like to do if we could use part of land
for parking.
Elizabeth McGillihan: To go commercial we know we are going to invite more crime.
You keep saying you would like to meet with us. We have taken our time
to come down here and voice our opinion. We want residential or leave
as it is.
Dave Keck: The owner said he is willing to work with the group in area. If we
could go back to residential, would you be willing to go that route and
build homes?
Mr. Scappatucci: I don't think so. We paid a lot of money for land.
Mr. Keck: A year ago we were here talking about Joy Road and Hix. They wanted to
go to apartments and condos. We are having problems with condos over in
Westland right now within our subdivision, traffic problems, sewer
problems and it seemed that that owner there was able to compromise and
put in residential homes in that area which is helping out with that
development. I would like you to really consider rezining from C-1 to
R-1 and look into putting homes there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Would your subdivision be willing to meet with him?
Lady in Audience: Next Monday we have our neighborhood meeting. It is at 7:30 pm at
Washington Elementary School. An invitation is extended to you.
Carol Salhaney, 38750 Grandon: I am president of Dover and Arbor Subdivisions. I
agree with everything said tonight. I don't know if it is proper to
take a vote now or if they want to rehash everything Monday.
Mr. McCann: What I don't want to see is no communication between Scappatucci and
yourselves and let him decide what kind of commercial property he is
going to put in the front. I think it would be beneficial to everyone
to get his point of view. It is my opinion I would like to table this
to allow him to meet with you.
Michael Powell, 38962 Minton: I am concerned about your comment about our not
communicating. I think the people that border this property are opposed
to extending the commercial into residential. It may be he can get the
highest profit for his investment by commercializing this property but I
don't think it is necessary that he get the most profit. If he can use
that property for something that is more compatible to the residents, he
should do that. It is clear to me that everyone here doesn't want it
rezoned. I don't know what purpose would be served to table this
matter.
10182
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-1-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1988
on Petition 88-4-1-8 by Marcello Scappaticci to rezone property located
south of Ann Arbor Road between Patton Avenue and Knolson Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 31 from R-1 to C-1 and P, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 88-4-1-8 until the study
meeting to be held on June 14, 1988.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, McCann, Soranno, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Morrow, Naidow
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Vyhnalek then asked Carol Salhaney to call John Nagy and tell him their opinion
after their meeting.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-1-9 by
the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile
Road, west of Merriman Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15 from C-2 to RUFA.
Mr. Nagy: We have no correspondence in our file on this petition.
Mr. LaPine: One question. The only portion we are talking about is that property
*m' circled in red?
Mr. Nagy: That property is split zoned. Right now the property is used for
residential. The purpose for the proposed change of zoning is to
consider whether that commercial zoning should be removed from the
property so that the entire lot would be in a residential classification
reflecting established use of property. There is an existing house on
property.
Louis Pavlichek, 31480 Five Mile: I own that piece of property there. . I would like
to know why the Commission wants that changed back to RUF. All the
years it has been on commercial status. Even when it was changed to
commercial status 1 was not notified about it. I just happened to find
out about it from a neighbor. This was 25 years ago. My home is on it
and I would like to see it left that way for in the future I may have to
sell it and it would be more beneficial to me than if it was turned back
to residential.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you lived at that property?
Mr. Pavlichek: Almost 37 years.
10183
Mr. LaPine: During the time the parcel was zoned to commercial, you didn't know it
was commercial?
Mr. Pavlichek: No I didn't.
Mr. LaPine: You have been paying taxes on that as commercial property"?
Mr. Pavlichek: No I had to go down to Board of Review every year and have it changed
over for residential.
Mr. LaPine: So you have been paying residential taxes but you have a commercial
designation so now the property is more important to you as commercial
rather than residential?
Mr. Pavlichek: Right, because sometime down the road I may have to sell.
Mr. LaPine: During the time that you owned that property you never had any indication
you wanted to use it for commercial?
Mr. Pavlichek: No. For a number of years I had a fruit stand to sell stuff I grew in
the back.
Mr. LaPine: We don't want any more encroachment of commercial property on Five Mile.
We would like to stop it at the Showerman property. If we were to
continue allowing you to use that as commercial and you sell it, someone
can build something on there and then the guy next door to you is going
to come along and he will say he wants to have his property rezoned. We
would like to have it stay residential. I feel that it can be sold as a
residential property.
4` Mr. Pavlichek: Mr. Showerman bought the property west of me in the hopes that he
could buy my property some day.
Mr. LaPine: That is what worries me, Mr. Showerman owns the property next door to
you and we will have a deluge that everyone on the block will want to
have it changed over to commercial. I do not want to see any more
commercial encroachment along Five Mile.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make is the one thing that has happened in the
immediate past is Best Block has been moved and they are building a huge
development there and we sure don't need any more commercial in that
area and that is my view. I agree with Mr. LaPine let's not put in any
more C-2 in there.
Mr. McCann: Do you have any current offers right now?
Mr. Pavlichek: I am not negotiating with anyone. I have had some offers but they
have not materialized.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted,
it was
10184
#5-83-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1988
on Petition 88-4-1-9 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property
located on the north side of Five Mile Road, west of Merriman Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 15 from C-2 to RUFA, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-4-1-9 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning will remove unused commercial zoning in
the area.
2) The proposed change of zoning will discourage any further expansion of
commercial zoning west along Five Mile Road.
3) The proposed change of zoning will provide a residential zoning category
which will be compatible with the existing residential use of the
property.
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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-1-10 by
the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road,
west of Hix Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31 from C-2 to R-1.
Richard Lewiston, 21790 Coolidge Highway, Oak Park: It is really a matter of consent.
Under the Consent Judgment it may be used only for C-2 uses. We have
asked the City to consider its use for R-1 residential purposes. It is
the City Attorney's opinion that R-1 should not be built in commercial
area. We would like to amend the judgment. The subdivision that is
proposed would be a duplicate of the one we just finished in that area.
Mr. Morrow: I certainly agree with the petitioner and I commend you. What led you
to this decision.
Mr. Lewiston: The property has been owned by Arbor Drugs. He is an old acquaintance
and it was his opinion that this corner would not be first class
commercial. He did, however, offer it for sale, When he asked me to
get involved, it was my view it was not a first class commercial
property. We did investigate other uses. We came in with multiple
family and we brought out a lot of people. This will be identical to
our other subdivision. There are 21 lots. We are just about in the
final stages of other development.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Has there been a lot of interest?
Mr. Lewiston: There have been a number of phone calls.
Joe Wash, 8874 Pere: I have a couple of questions. I have read the covenant papers.
Would the covenant papers be carried out by the builder?
Mr. Lewiston: Yes, the covenant papers will be carried out by the builder.
10185
Mr. Wash: I think you are doing a good job.
Dave Keck, 9243 Knolson: I would like to speak in favor of this petition and I would
like to thank the developer for following this procedure. It can work
out.
Joe Wright, 8880 Hix: I just wanted to say I am in favor of rezoning that property.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-1-10 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-84-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1988
on Petition 88-4-1-10 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property
located on the north side of Joy Road, west of Hix Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 31 from C-2 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-4-1-10 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning will remove a substantial amount of unused
commercial zoning in the area.
2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for the development of the
property as a residential subdivision similar to the adjacent Regency
Circle Subdivision currently under development.
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.
'ter.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-1-11 by
Saints Credit Union to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between
Louise and Melvin in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35 from R-1 to P.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the rezoning proposal. There is also in our
file a petition from Daniel Kelly and signed by 20 persons stating they
do not want this zone changed. We have another petition in our file
from Saints Credit Union signed by 69 persons in favor of this petition.
Craig Lantto, 29820 Joy Road, Petitioner: Also present with me tonight is Tom Hirst.
I am not sure everyone is aware of the situation we are in right now.
What we are planning to do is to change 20 feet immediately west of our
building to a parking area. Currently the only parking we have is on
east at side of building at Louise. Right now Louise and Joy is quite
congested. We currently own the three lots west of credit union
including the one in question right now. We would like to change it and
make it asphalt for parking and for easier access in and out of credit
10186
union. This would keep traffic off Louise Street. (He showed a
picture). We would asphalt behind building and have driveway at back
and come out on Joy Road and separate residential area by cyclone fence.
Mr. LaPine: How many parking spots do you have at present time?
r..
Mr. Tom Hirst: We presently have 10 parking spaces on east side of building. By
going to west we would pick up some additional 14.
Mr. LaPine: How many employees take up parking spots?
Mr. Hirst: We have 6 employees and they park out in front.
Mr. Nagy: They built the building in compliance with off-street parking.
Mr. LaPine: If there was enough parking when building was built, you must have known
your business would expand.
Mr. Hirst: I have been affiliated with credit union 1 1/2 years. We have a number
of times told the gal next door that we wanted to buy that property with
the idea of expanding our parking. Our membership has increased from
3,076 up to 6,500 and that is why it is important that we do have
adequate parking to get the cars off the street. There is a catholic
school across the street. We want to get the vehicles off the street
and into a parking area.
Mr. LaPine: If you were successful, how many parking spaces would you put in?
Mr. Hirst: 14, giving us a total of 24.
*.. Mr. LaPine: You think that would be adequate for 6,000?
Mr. Hirst: They don't all come at the same time.
Mr. LaPine: Do you plan on putting in drive-in windows in the future?
Mr. Hirst: Right now we are more concerned about parking.
Mr. LaPine: This petition that you submitted, was that taken around the neighborhood
or credit union.
Mr. Hirst: That was taken around the neighborhood.
Mr. LaPine: I see there are people in Detroit and Westland.
Mr. Lantto: If you will notice a lot of those people work in that area. We thought
if we could take some of the traffic away. Our intention would be to
have it rezoned for parking and make it strictly a right turn exit onto
Joy Road from our parking lot.
Marian Kyte: I am neighbor next to credit union. I share alley. It is not a vacated
alley. It is an open alley. If we rezone this to parking, they would
like this to be a drive-thru window. That is my only access to my
garage. I don't know where this traffic will go but I would like to be
able to get into my garage. As he said they are going to increase their
r► membership to 6,500, I don't know where we are going to put all this
traffic.
10187
Mr. Vyhnalek: It took them quite a few years to get to 3,200, it would probably take
them a while to get to 6,000.
Mrs. Kyte then showed the commissioners a picture of her garage.
Dan Kelly: I own property west of there - Lots 317-325. They want to put in a
drive-thru window. They are talking parking but they want a drive-thru
window. She even told me that. I told them this is not a vacated
alley. It is a public alley. Marian asked the lady at the credit union
what should she do if she cannot get into her garage and the lady told
her to park in street. I would have drive-thru window right in my back
yard. They are storing repossessed cars in that alley. We just don't
want this in our area.
David Henry, 8877 Louise: I am against the petition to rezone. I have two young
daughters and they like to ride their bikes around the area. I feel
this is very unsafe. There is a lot of traffic from the high school
among students. To have a drive-thru would be very unsafe. I suggested
that they open another branch near some other parish instead of a
drive-thru at this small building.
Mr. Lantto: We are not currently planning a drive-thru window. We don't feel it is
necessary at this time. It is only an added expense. As far as our
neighbor on the northwest not having access to her garage, it is because
we do not have adequate parking. In response to statement about
repossessed vehicles. Some of them have been dropped there. We have
moved them. The vehicle in question now is in our parking space so it
is not an abandoned vehicle. We are trying to make it easier on our
neighbors.
Mr. Morrow: Has the Board of Directors considered removing the house?
Mr. Lantto: That is a long range plan. We just recently purchased it.
Mr. Morrow: It appears we have a use that is creating a traffic problem right now.
We don't like to have employees parking on the street. I am not saying
I am in favor of increasing the parking lot but I am not in favor of
creating a non-conforming use but if the house were taken down with a
green buffer, I just can't see a non-conforming house setting there.
James Richard, 8883 Melvin: They are talking about the traffic going from Louise to
Joy Road and they are talking about putting another drive west of the
credit union out on Joy Road. They are talking about Louise being over-
burdened with traffic right now. The names on petition do not even live
in area.
Patricia Byrne, 8874 Melvin: I live next to Mr. Kelly. He has almost an historical
house and next door to that is going to be parking. We already have the
veterinarian. We have a lot of traffic due to this. Now we are going
to have all the traffic coming around when they pull out of driveway. I
am worried about my property value. I am going to be looking out my
10188
back window and see all these people parking. My daughter goes to
catholic school. These kids will be walking to school right past the
driveway. People are going to be pulling out of there constantly. If
children are going to be walking past there, you are going to have to
put someone in front of this driveway.
Pete Sergiko, 8916 Melvin: In regards to the small lot splits on Melvin and Louise,
those homes were built in 1959. Right after that homes were built in
1965-1967 they were changed to 60 foot lots. Going back to Mr. LaPine's
thinking about parking lot, they can have all the parking spaces they
want and the people will still park out in the street. They can have
only 3 cars in parking lot and they are all parking out in street. They
are not that busy. People are just going in and right back out. I
don't think they need any more room than they have now. That area was a
blight area and now Livonia has brightened it up. That veterinarian
does have drive on Joy Road, why should these people have one there?
Mr. Hirst: In response to repossession. Those cars sitting in those lots, we are
currently interviewing a repossession company. Two of them. They will
be taken to a repossession lot and kept there as soon as we hire one of
these individuals to take care of this .
Betty Forbes, Employee of Credit Union, 29820 Joy Road: In response to Marian Kyte
stating that we blocked her driveway, she forgets the alley is 20 foot
not 10. The garage has grown over. To my knowledge only three times in
ten years have they blocked her out. One time her husband got blocked
out, he came in and they moved their car. The drive-in window is
something in the future not today. If you would like to come over on
Thursday or Friday afternoon, you will see we are very very busy. It is
a growing credit union that built a building in 66 and I only wish they
would have done better with the planning then. I am going to ask later
for a circular drive on Joy road. Dan Kelly has all kinds of cars
parked in his alley space and he is saying to us we can't have any.
Dan Kelly: She said I have a lot of cars parked in alley. I have cars parked in my
alley. I have vacated alley. I pay taxes on that alley. I can park
any cars I want in that alley.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are correct.
Marian Kyte: I guess I am a little concerned. I don't care to have the traffic going
by my side door. We used to have traffic coming through there. I feel
the same way if there are constant cars coming in and out that alley
way, that is going to interfere with my privacy. It has happened a
couple of times. I couldn't get to my garage. I think Mr. LaPine said
he didn't want an area to be rezoned or kept commercial, by allowing
them to get the parking that is what you are doing to our neighborhood.
We don't want any more commercial area in our neighborhood.
Justine Paduch, 8863 Louise: I think one of the big problems everyone is failing to
realize is what they are attempting to do with that side driveway and
alley, they are going right into Mrs. Kyte's side door. They are being
very considerate, saying they are going to asphalt but now they are
extending from her side door to her garage door. It doesn t seem like
10189
anyone is taking her into consideration. How would they like to come
out in the summertime out their side door and try to enjoy some leisure
time. On the weekend that parking lot is used by parishioners of that
church. There is always traffic in and out of that parking area. If
anyone would come in and look at that area, I don't see how they could
`"r do it. Years ago it was probably intended to be a nice friendly parish
credit union so they could have convenient way of doing their personal
business but they have changed that whole idea. They have changed into
CoAmerica or Michigan National Bank. I think it is ridiculous to take
away from our neighborhood. I feel funny going into my back yard. I
wish they would take one strong look at it. The customers are not the
friendliest customers. They are all zooming through there.
Mrs. Forbes: Why they are zooming through there is we are all parking on the street.
We have offered, as far as Marian Kyte is concerned, we would be happy
to put a privacy fence covering her door. We were willing to asphalt
complete alley. People are not concerned about looking at people
sunbathing. We have certainly tried to do a courtesy to everyone
Mr. Soranno: It sounds like you are expecting to take on more parishes, maybe having
a drive-in window. Is that site suited for you any more?
Mrs. Forbes: It has been since 1956. Only in the last ten years it has grown twice
as fast as we anticipated. I went through neighborhood and I personally
gave every person a map that would talk to me and they said this sounds
great, where do I sign and when do you start?
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-1-11 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-85-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1988
on Petition 88-4-1-11 by Saints Credit Union to rezone property located on
the north side of Joy Road between Louise and Melvin in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 35 from R-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 88-4-1-11 be denied for the following
reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning would leave the adjacent residence with a
deficient lot width and area.
2) The proposed change of zoning would represent a further encroachment of
a non-residential zoning district into a residential area.
3) The proposed change of zoning would be detrimental to the adjacent
residential 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10190
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-2-13 by
Marvin Walkon for waiver use approval to construct an automobile and truck rental
facility on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Priscilla Lane in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division dated April
29, 1988 stating they have no objections to waiver use proposal;
however, they had not received a site plan in connection therewith.
There is also a letter in the file from the Engineering Division dated
May 17, 1988 stating it is their understanding that the question of
water pressures had been raised by residents of adjacent Alden Village
Subdivision. They were advised that the Water Department was mot aware
of any specific water pressure problems in this area. However, steps
are presently being taken by the City to increase water pressures in the
southwest corner of the City which may have an impact on the Stark -
Plymouth Road area. Construction to facilitate the above demand
requirements is expected to be completed this fall which will allow
greater use of the City of Detroit's Schoolcraft Pump Station and allow
increased pressures at the City's intake at Schoolcraft and Stark Roads.
Future plans also provide for cleaning and lining of the existing 18"
water main in Plymouth Road from Farmington Road west to Newburgh Road.
If car wash facilities are contemplated, they would recommend that the
developer tap the existing 8" water main in Stark Road as opposed to the
6" system in Boston Post Road.
Charles Tangora, 32900 Five Mile Road, representing Petitioner: We are here with
representatives of Budget Rent A Car and also the architect, Mr. Davis.
After study meeting we did meet with the good folks of Alden Village and
reviewed the site plan and the facility we would like to build there.
We got the message loud and clear that they did not care for outlet on
'tar Priscilla Drive. We have revised site plan tonight and we have reviewed
it with residents of Alden Village. We have made other minor changes.
We have located some of lighting, we have indicated that berm area, the
height of berm. We are going to meet with residents again if waiver use
is approved. It will be well landscaped. The berm is going to be
sprinkled. The only change we didn't make, we didn't make a change in
location of dumpster. The location that was suggested to us by Planning
Commission. They felt if we left it where it was and hid it with berm,
that would be better.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Has our Planning Department looked at this?
Mr. Tangora: Yes. We delivered the site plan to them this afternoon.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you review it?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, we did review it.
Mr. Tangora then went over the revised plan for Commissioners.
Mr. Soranno: Are people who rent cars going to be instructed to pick up cars? How
will they know there is an exit in back.
Mr. Tangora: I am not aware of operation. Stark Road would be the obvious place. I
think the easiest way would be to go out on Stark Road.
10191
Mr. Soranno: I agree. I just want to make sure they know there will be an exit on
Stark.
Mr. Tangora: Most of vehicles will be rented for a week at a time. There is not a
kowir steady flow of trafic. These cars are mainly rented for a week or
month. It is not a day by day, hour by hour, flow of traffic.
Mr. Soranno: The ingress and egress on Plymouth. I am concerned about traffic going
east.
Mr. Tangora: With exit on Stark Road it will help.
Mr. McCann: What do they plan on doing with cars after 6 months or 6,000 miles?
Mr. Tangora: They will turn them back in.
Mr. McCann: They will never be sold from that lot?
Mr. Tangora: No, they will not be sold from that lot. Our waiver use is strictly for
rental not for sales.
Bill Sassanini, General Manager: They will be turned back to manufacturer. We buy
our cars on lease program and they will be returned directly to auction.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any truck rental? How large are the trucks?
Mr. Tangora: Van type trucks. Passenger vans etc.
Mr. LaPine: How many trucks stored at one time?
fir' Mr. Sassanini: About five or ten daily rentals.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have a car wash facility? How large?
Mr. Sassanini: Yes. They take care of cars that will be brought back. It is located
on north end.
Mr. LaPine: Is this a 24-hour operation?
Mr. Tangora: : Absolutely not. 8:00 - 7:00 five days a week. 4:00 to 5:00 in the
afternoon on Saturday. Possibility of same hours on Sunday if business
warrants.
Mrs. Sobolewski: What about servicing cars? Changing tires, changing oil etc.
Mr. Tangora: These cars are turned in every six months so there is no major work.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Nothing stored outside? Tires or oil?
Mr. Soranno: If you do minor repairs, would you consider oil changing a minor repair?
What do you do with oil?
Mr. Sassanini: Put in tanks and then pumped out.
Mr. Soranno: There is an arrangement for an underground pump at that site?
10192
Mr. Sassanini: All major repair will be done at airport facility.
Mrs. Naidow: How high is berm?
�• Mr. Tangora: Five foot berm.
Mrs. Naidow: Do you plan on having cyclone fence.
Mr. Sassanini: That is optional at this time. We haven't decided.
Mr. Morrow: Do your clients own this piece of property?
Mr. Tangora: No. There is a doctor that owns it. There is an option to purchase.
Mr. Morrow: Does auto rental have permitted use?
Mr. Nagy: Only in C-3.
Mr. Morrow: You have a high priced piece of property on a busy road. Why do you
have to be on a busy street for this type of business?
Mr. Sassanini: We have a similar facility on Twelve Mile and Telegraph. The success
of that facility is the fact that it is a busy highway and that is why
this particular site was chosen. We think it will be equally as
successful.
Mr. Morrow: Do you contribute that to the traffic in that location?
Mr. Sassanini: We contribute it to the fact that it is where it is and the amount of
traffic that goes by there.
\.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have sales people that go out and sell business people these
cars?
Mr. Sassanini: Yes, a Marketing and Sales Staff.
Mr. LaPine: How much of your business would you get from people driving by?
Mr. Sassanini: Half of it is drive past.
Mr. LaPine: Isn't it true that most rentals are for one or two days for people who
have their cars in for repair.
Mr. Sassanini: Yes, that is true.
Mr. LaPine: Most people rent their cars from the dealership where their car is being
repaired.
Mr. Sassanini: They rent the cars through a dealership but not necessarily the cars
from that dealer.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have the same set up with dealers?
Mr. Sassanini: Yes, but it is not a large part of our business.
10193
Mr. Vyhnalek: Marvin Walkon, who is he?
Mr. Tangora: He is investor who is purchasing the land.
`r► Mrs. Sobolewski: Are my notes correct? Will we be getting a more detailed landscape
plan?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mrs. Sobolewski: You are not moving dumpster. Have you ever thought about an inside
dumpster?
Mr. Tangora: We never thought about it. This is going to be district headquarters of
area. There are going to be advertising offices in addition to sales
office that would generate a lot of paper type waste. I don't know if
the waste from garage would fit into it.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I would think about it.
Priscilla Hunter, 34901 Priscilla Lane: As you people know, we have been in here many
times. We are concerned about a lot of things. I think the way the
disposal is, is a problem. We have a problem with Wendys right now. We
are for Budget but we do have a lot of things we want to make sure of
before we really say yes. This is what we want. We do not want them
putting back in ingress and egress on to Priscilla Lane. There is no
left turn on Priscilla and everyone goes through shopping center. We
have people going into our subdivision. We were concerned about
lighting. They showed us lighting system. It looks fine. We do not
want an outdoor P.A. system. We have Bill Brown all the time. They
were also in. They promised not to have that.
slow
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are in favor of this?
Mrs. Hunter: We could do a lot worse. We are concerned about traffic on Plymouth
Road. We do want left turn arrow at Stark.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is Wayne County.
Mrs. Hunter: We have been fighting this traffic problem for two or three years right
Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: More than that.
Mrs. Hunter: Something has to be done if we are going to continue to put more and
more buildings in our area. Something is going to go in that area.
Their plans look beautiful and I think we could do worse. We were
concerned about water problems and that has been taken care of.
John Stannes: I live directly north of building site. I have been concerned about
what is going to be built in there. I think we could do a lot worse.
There are a lot of party stores, bars, restaurants. I think Budget has
been working real hard.
10194
Joe Vanzo, 12066 Boston Post: Like John said we probably could do worse and we could
do better too. I liked Mrs. Sobolewski's idea of the indoor compactor.
We do have a problem with Wendys. I would like to clarify one thing.
Since they put no left turn off Plymouth Road on Priscilla Lane from
3:00 to 6:00 p.m. , the people who have left those building on the mall
west of Priscilla Lane will agree what traffic is doing to them now.
The people turn through shopping center. I would like to ask can we
state conditions which we agreed to and the Budget people agreed to with
us at our meeting. Can those conditions be incorporated if this is
approved by the Planning Commission tonight? (1) We want berm and we
want it 5 feet high. (2) On berm, we want sprinkling system that is
automatic. We do not want someone turning it on and off and it has to
be regulated by Forestry Department.
Mr. Nagy: We cannot compel the city to go out. We will see that site is properly
maintained.
Mr. Vanzo: (3) Exit would be through Stark Road and I recommend, for safety, anyone
pulling on Plymouth no left hand turn.
Mr. Vyhnalek: They are going to put up sign "no left turn".
Mr. Vanzo: (4) No P.A. system. (5) Cyclone fence along berm.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That is not definite yet. There is no site plan in yet.
Mr. Soranno: I forgot to ask Mr. Tangora if anything mentioned in the Engineering
Department's letter was a problem.
Mr. Tangora: No. We are aware of water system.
`" There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-2-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#5-86-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1988
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 88-4-2-13 by Marvin Walkon for waiver use approval to construct an
automobile and truck rental facility on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Stark Road and Priscilla Lane in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan marked Sheet P-1 dated 5-17-88, as revised, prepared
by Christopher Davis & Associates, Architects which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
2) That the building elevation plan marked Sheet P-3 dated 4-14-88 prepared
by Christopher Davis & Associates, Architects which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to.
3) That a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission within 30 days of the date of this resolution for their
approval.
10195
4) That there shall be no sales of cars or trucks conducted on the
premises.
5) That there shall be no outside public address system used.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use requirements
and standards 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 not detrimental to 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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: LaPine, Morrow
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-2-14 by
Nancy Barile for waiver use approval to operate a sit-down restaurant within an
existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Merriman Road in
`''r' the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating the
legal description contained on the petitioner's plan meets with their
approval. We also have a letter in our file from Lorna Schaffer, 11905
Merriman, stating she is in favor of petition. We have a letter in our
file from Mrs. Gary S. Miller stating she is in favor of petition. Also
in our file is a letter from Agnes L. Miller of 9909 Arden in support of
petition. Finally we have a letter in our file from Michael A. Guido,
Mayor of Dearborn, commenting on the tremendous contributions Angelo
Barile had made to the City of Dearborn and recommending Mr. Barile as a
solid, responsible entreprenuer.
Nancy Barile, 35181 Vargo: I would like to make my comments brief to better describe
the problems we have incurred since we opened our doors three months
ago. The bulk of our business comes from residents that live in
neighborhood and industrial area located around us and the other
business people who work in the offices who do not have a place to sit
inside their own building. They come to us looking for a place to eat
and they realize their food will be cold when they get back to their
office. I have a petition with 1300 names and I have had people come to
me to sign my petition. I have written letters and I have talked to
hundreds of people. The one woman who wrote to this Commission two
10196
years ago, she wrote a letter expressing her opinion that Plymouth Road
does not need any more restaurants and she also explained why she will
sign my petition. She said once she has seen the beautiful building and
the improvements we have made to her neighborhood, she felt she should
have a choice to be able to sit down inside and if she could eat her
frozen custard inside why couldn't she eat pizza inside. I have 1300
`"" names, maybe 100 are from non-residents, people who work in area. I
intend on getting 2,000 names. I have not been turned down by anyone.
The problem when people see the chairs inside they think they are able
to sit down and eat. They bring their family and they are not
interested in just having a frozen custard. I tell them they have to
leave and eat their pizza at home and come back for their custard. It
is an embarrassing situation. We have had a problem ever since we
opened up with customers not noticing the signs that say they cannot eat
inside. People order their food and they pay for it and they head for
the tables. My husband and I have to stop them and they are upset and
they say you can take your food, I am going to go where I can sit down.
Most of the time they leave their car in our lot. We are left with food
and this amounts to a big loss of income.
Mr. LaPine: I wasn't on the board when this was before the Planning Commission
before is that correct.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Right.
Mr. LaPine: Could I have some background?
Mr. Nagy: The Bariles did petition two years ago for a restaurant. Planning
Commission did deny for restaurant because of excessive number of
restaurants in area, traffic in area, etc. Council turned it down.
Shortly thereafter generally the same plan was presented to the Planning
Commission but rather than restaurant, Italian bakery serving sliced
Nom' pizza and other bakery items and did come in for site plan use only not
waiver use. They went in fully knowing they were only to have baked
goods. They decided that was the business they wanted to get into and
they had full knowledge. They are now having problems.
Mr. Morrow: I recall that I think the commission had similar concern at the time
they came forward for the approval of plans and I guess two years later
those concerns now manifested itself into the course for which you are
here tonight.
Mrs. Barile: Basically we had to get something going on that piece of property. We
could not have no income for three years. We decided since we had 21
seats for ice cream, we would try to generate income that way. Now we
have a lot of confusion. I do realize there is an ordinance against
people eating in their car. We wanted to have a quality restaurant at
low prices where families could come in at prices they could afford. We
don't have alcohol. We would like something the people could sit down
and have a quick meal but to distinguish between custard and pizza does
not make sense.
10197
Mr. LaPine: You were well aware when you built the building that you could not
operate a restaurant and so now you have found out that maybe that pizza
place wasn't viable there without a sit-down restaurant and now you are
asking for the same thing you asked for previously. I think we are
saturated with restaurants on Plymouth Road. I don't see where you are
justified. Now you come back and ask for what was already denied. You
*ft.
should have scaled down your operation knowing you couldn't operate a
restaurant or you could have resold the property.
Mrs. Barile: We could have resold the property when we were told we could not have
the sit-down restaurant, then I pick up my newspaper and I find out
McDonalds is going to be built. Somebody came two years after us and
they built a restaurant and a family that resides in Livonia trying to
make a living, I just feel our rights should be the same as a
corporations.
Mr. Morrow: She mentioned that some restaurants up and down Plymouth, they had the
approval to have a restaurant prior to building. On McDonalds we voted
against that 9 to 0. Apparently our City Council was more impressed by
McDonalds marketing survey than the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Barile: I don't feel I am directly competing with anyone in our area. To
oversaturate I feel you would have the same type of restaurant. We are
doing something different. We feel we have a good product and you can
only purchase it from us. They don't like the inconvenience of having
to go home.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How did you come up with 76 seats?
Mrs. Barile: 76 was the original number when we first asked for a restaurant. The 21
represents the number the City dictated to us.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you go to Council?
Mrs. Barile: No, we withdrew the petition. I am willing to settle for less seating
than 76 just to let them sit down for both items.
Mr. Soranno: I was one of the ones opposed to restaurant originally and I had a
concern at that time because I had an opportunity to frequent the bakery
in Dearborn. You ran a very good business, and I felt at that time and I
still feel that location on Plymouth Road is the wrong location. I am
sympathetic. You are in a situation but I don't feel you have anyone to
blame but yourselves. It seems like this was a long term plan or
scheme. You couldn't get the restaurant in the first time, let us lay
low and come back later.
Mrs. Barile: We never petitioned for a bakery of any sort. We never bake bread
there. That is the kind of business we were leaving.
Mr. Soranno: I sympathize with the customers because they are lead to believe they
could go in there with that amount of space.
Mrs. Barile: We would have liked to go to another spot but with the money we had that
was what we were able to afford. We do not have the chance to compete
with anyone in the area.
10198
Sylvia Barile, brother of Angelo: I am sure it is not your gentlemen's fault. I
think it is a misunderstanding that went on between my brother and his
wife. I am sympathetic with everyone. I am sympathetic with you boys.
My brother just needs something. It seems unfair. I just ask this
audience and you guys too to give my brother some seats.
Paul Crook, Livonia: I would like to address this to Mr. Soranno. Why are you
allowing Dalys to run a restaurant and you are saying that is not a good
area for Pizza Man?
Mr. Soranno: Dalys has been there for quite some time. I, as one commissioner, has
tried to slow down the proliferation of restaurants on Plymouth Road. I
am saying the number of restaurants along Plymouth Road.
Mr. Crook: I feel their location is an excellent location for a restaurant, that
they are not competing with Dalys.
Mr. Soranno: It has nothing to do with Daly restaurant.
Mr. Crook: I feel they have a good location and they should be granted the right to
run a restaurant.
Joe Durso, 35345 Seven Mile: I am probably more aware of the situation than most
people and aware of the thinking behind everyone here tonight. I am
going to speak to issue on personal level. I sold the man the property
and I watched him built it. I am more concerned about the fact that
we found a good neighbor and good business person. Angelo is a very
nice gentleman. Mr. Nagy stated what happened in the beginning. I
think it is important that we look at that. You denied this thing and
Mr. and Mrs. Barile did know when they went in what the issue was. I
think they wanted to show you what a good job they could do. The
building is a very nice building. They have a lot of money involved. I
have talked to some of the neighbors and I have stopped in there a
number of times. It is sort of sad that we cannot overlook problems in
past. I think Mr. and Mrs. Barile felt let us show you what we can do.
I know it is difficult to go back on your feelings but I am appealing to
you to look at what they have done. They are not a fly by night. I
don't think anyone can say anything negative. If you can approve it, if
there is a way to save your face and grant them some seating, it can't
hurt us as a city.
Mrs. McCullum, 15069 Melvin: Whats wrong with competition? Down the street at the
shopping center they have 11 shoe stores. The way I look at it the more
restaurants we have the better it is. They keep their prices. Down on
Telegraph they have 7 restaurants in a row. What is wrong with Livonia,
why can't they do the same. The Barile family lives in Livonia and
where are the taxes going, for your salaries. He may have made a
mistake in the beginning but the more the merrier.
Dave Kleiner, 31636 West Chicago: I first went to Pizza Man shortly after he opened.
Upon ordering pizza I found I had to take it home. I think we have to
set aside some of the background stuff. We have a citizen of Livonia
who has a lot of money involved. We have a lot of talk about too many
10199
restaurants on Plymouth Road but I don't think there are any decent
restaurants on Plymouth. I think he should be able to have seating. I
think if Pizza Man is not given opportunity, he may lose it.
Mrs. Scapani representing DePalmas restaurant: I do have a letter from the DePalmas
supporting Angelo Barile in his request to obtain a sit down restaurant.
He has invested a great deal of time and money. It is an asset. We
feel no threat and feel he should be able to have approval. Mr. DePalma
is the new kid on the block. They see him as a real asset. People come
in and enjoy the items he does offer and it is unique and I think a
benefit to our city. I think he should have opportunity to let his
customers sit down and eat there.
Sandy McCullogh, 17928 Shadyside: It is a beautiful very clean restaurant. I think
people think a waitress will wait on them. If that is the kind of
service you want, that is the kind of place you are going to go to but
this is a totally different type of set up and the food is more of a
homemade family style place and by the time you get the pizza home, it
is going to be cold or my ice cream will be melted. I don't think you
can compare them to McDonalds and Dalys.
Mr. Barile: I hope and pray that you help my brother because we are honest people
and he is just looking for some seating.
Randy Ellis, 34117 Fairfax: I wasn t going to say anything but I have to ask out of
curiousity. I went into Pizza Man. How can you go ahead and give a man
seats for ice cream and you walk in and order a sub sandwich but you
can't eat your sandwich there? Do you see what I am saying?
Dennis Rolf, 31767 Middleboro: We are trying to hold back the fast food. There are
so many fast foods on Plymouth Road. As it is, Big Boy doesnt get
'41m. of
down. I think you should take your blinders off. Look at some
of the eyesores and move them.
Cathy Kensiminni: I have been in Pizza Man with my little boy. It is very hard to
give him ice cream and he wants pizza. He is in wheelchair. That
really bothers me.
Mr. Morrow: I tried to make it clear. After we saw the plans we said these people
will be back. They created it and we are being chastised for it. One
of the things we have to face here tonight that if we set precedent, do
we let people come in and then let them come in the back door. My
concern tonight is for a fellow Livonian who has a problem. It is not
easy sitting up here. We did not vote for McDonalds. Dalys was here
for years. We are trying to react to a situation that we said they will
be back.
Mr. McCann: You are asking for 76 seats? What is the minimum number of seats you
would need to get by?
Mrs. Barile: Judging from amount of traffic we turn away, I would say 50 seats. That
would accommodate the people that do come in.
10200
Mr. McCann: I met Mr. Barile one time and he spoke his concerns to me. I know
certain members of the audience tonight. We are here as citizens to see
what is best. I was not on Planning Commission when this came to
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has to say when are we
going to stop this. The Planning Commission has to deal with this. I
do see a person who lives in Livonia. He has been in business before.
`"" You impressed me with letter from Mayor of Dearborn, the other letter
with 1300 signatures, the people who have stood up and said what a nice
restaurant it is. I also liked the letter from the other restaurant
saying it is willing to have competition. I would like board to
consider, the petitioner did this wrong, but the board is going to have
to look at it tonight. We have a strong family business. Do we want
another business. I would ask that maybe we don't grant everything you
request but we get some kind of settlement. We give these people who
have shown a good concern for Livonia a fighting chance.
Mr. Soranno: I was torn and still torn. I would be willing to table motion. Perhaps
there is something we can do so I would be willing to entertain a motion
to table item.
Mr. LaPine: Even if we compromise, it will still have to go to Council.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-2-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted,
it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1988
on Petition 88-4-2-14 by Nancy Barile for waiver use approval to operate a
sit-down restaurant within an existing building located on the north side of
Plymouth Road, west of Merriman Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the
`' City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 88-4-2-14
until the study meeting to be held on May 24, 1988.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretaty, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-2-15 by
Leonard L. Grossman for waiver use approval to use an existing building for general
office purposes on property located on the east side of Newburgh Road north of Six
Mile Road and Bennett Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Nagy: We have no correspondence in our file relating to this petition.
Leonard Grossman: This is the piece of property formerly known as the tennis club.
We have remodeled it. We have had several inquiries. Unfortunately we
have not been able to lease it yet. We would like to be able to lease
it for something besides provessional use. We have negotiations with
company that does pension plans although I cannot tell you they will be
the tenant. We request permission of this body to have waiver use for
office purposes.
Mr. LaPine: Have you had any tenant?
10201
Mr. Grossman: No. Because of the physical layout of the building we would require
7,000 square feet.
Mr. LaPine: This tenant would take whole building?
Mr. Grossman: No. 20,000 to 25,000 feet.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-2-15 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved,
it was
115-87-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1988
on Petition 88-4-2-15 by Leonard L. Grossman for waiver use approval to use
an existing building for general office purposes on property located on the
east side of Newburgh Road north of Six Mile Road and Bennett Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-4-2-15 be approved subject to
adherence to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City
Council under Petition 86-3-8-14, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
Nov 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-2-16 by
Bottles & Stuff Ltd. II requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License
within an existing party store located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five
Mile Road and Lancaster Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18.
Donald Laidlaw, 34705 South Blvd. , Westland: We have been there six years and I think
most of you know we have come a long way in that store. I think it used
to be a sore thumb. We have been to the Commmission before and we got
approval from the Commission but we were refused by the state. We would
like to give it another try.
Mr. Vhynalek: We have a problem. Under the ordinance there is an existing SDD License
at Fairlane Drug Store located within 1,000 feet of your site. The
Planning Commission has no alternative but to deny and let it go to
Council. They are the only body that can overturn that and it is just a
formality. You go through this procedure first and then you go to
Council.
10202
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-2-16 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved,
Nft, it was
#5-88-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1988
on Petition 88-4-2-16 by Donald Laidlaw, Bottles & Stuff, Ltd. II,
requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License within an existing
party store located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road
and Lancaster Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-4-2-16
be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the subject petition fails to comply with all of the specific and
general waiver use standards set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed petition fails to comply with the waiver use standard
set forth in Section 11.03(r)(1) which requires a 1000' separation
between an existing SDD licensed establishment and a proposed SDD
licensed established.
3) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
W. adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-2-17 by
William Roskelly for waiver use approval to construct a gasoline service station on
the southeast corner of Farmington Road and Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 27.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
there appears to be no problems connected with the entrance/exit drive
approaches to the Schoolcraft Road service drive and that the
construction of the drive approach to Farmington Road will be under the
jurisdiction of the Wayne County Public Service Division. They state
that input from that agency should be received prior to final approval
of the site plans. There is also a letter in our file from Wayne County
Department of Public Services stating the plans will be reviewed and a
letter with comments sent as soon as possible.
Bill Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly, Redford: The configuration of the land which is
approximately 128 feet by 400 feet makes it difficult to put too many
facilities on this parcel of land. The Amoco gas station seems to fit
well on that corner. We have added three additional parking places
other than that I would be happy to answer any questions.
Nifty
10203
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, see where C-2 is, do you own that parcel of land.
Mr. Roskelly: That is owned by Amoco Oil.
4411. Mr. LaPine: What are they going to do with that land?
Mr. Roskelly: That will be surplus land for service station facilities. It will
eventually be used for dental office, real estate office, not a retail
use.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What size building would that be.
Mr. Roskelly: About 48 feet deep. 4,000 to 5,000 square feet.
Mrs. Naidow: Amoco will be cutting the grass?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes, it will certainly be maintained by Amoco.
Mr. Vyhnalek: There is a drive now in the back from Masons to Schoolcraft.
Mr. Roskelly: That will be eliminated.
Joe Kapinski, 6578 Whitefield, Dearborn Heights: For the last twenty years my sister
and I owned that property. What we decided in the last two years is to
put it on market. Since then we have had three or four developers that
were interested in that property but they found out it wasn't feasible
to put up office building. Another person came by and said they would
like to put up auto wash but the City turned them down. We are here
tonight to get gas station. I think this would be an ideal spot for a
gas station. I hope the Planning Commission will think the same way we
;` do.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-2-17 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#5-89-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17,
1988 on Petition 88-4-2-17 by William Roskelly requesting waiver use
approval to construct a gasoline service station on property located on the
southeast corner of Farmington Road and Schoolcraft Road (I-96 Service
Drive) in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-4-2-17 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan dated 3-11-88, as revised, prepared by Basney &
Smith, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the landscape plan dated 4-16-88, as revised, prepared by Basney &
Smith, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be installed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permenently
maintained in a healthy condition.
3) That the building elevation plan dated 8-3-87 prepared by Amoco Oil
Company which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
10204
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the waiver use
standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the
�... Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accomodate 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: LaPine, Morrow
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 557th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning
Commission on April 26, 1988.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was
#5-90-88 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 557th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings
`um. held by the City Planning Commission on April 26, 1988 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Morrow
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: LaPine
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#5-91-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 87-8-2-39 by Louis G. Redstone Associates for
waiver use approval to renovate and construct an addition to the existing
building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard and
Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
10205
1) That the Revised Site Plan SK-5 dated 4/26/88 prepared by Louis G.
Redstone Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to;
2) That a detailed Landscape Plan be submitted for Planning Commission
approval within 30 days.
A roll A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Soranno, Morrow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: LaPine, Sobolewski, Naidow
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Revised
Building Plans submitted in connection with Petition 87-2-8-7 by the Foresta
Group, Inc. , for approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to renovate an existing office
building located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Edington and
Stamford in Section 16 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Building Plans Sheets 1 and 2 dated 5/12/88 prepared by Corrado
A. Bartoli, Architect are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the new trees be installed on site upon completion of the exterior
remodeling of the building.
Ilia, A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Morrow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Soranno, Sobolewski, LaPine, Naidow
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. Vhyhalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was
#5-91-88 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Revised
Building Plans submitted in connection with Petition 87-2-8-7 by the Foresta
Group, Inc. , for approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to renovate an existing office
building located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Edington and
Stamford in Section for the following reasons:
1) That the building plans submitted for approval do not reflect the
quality of design standard that is acceptable within the Civic Center
control area.
10206
2) That the building plans propose minor architectural cosmetic
modification to only the front facade which is inconsistent and contrary
to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the ordinance and
principles of sound planning.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Soranno, Sobolewski, LaPine, Naidow
NAYS: McCann, Morrow, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved,
it was
##5-92-88 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Twin Valley Corporation for
a monument sign on property located at 20200-46 Farmington Road be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Monument Sign Plan prepared by Michigan Signs, Inc. for
Pinebrooke Office Park, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
and
2) That the Small Tenant Identification Signs as shown on the plan prepared
by David Lubin Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered
to.
`,,. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously approved,
it was
#5-93-88 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Cambridge Center Limited
Partnership for two office monument signs and one subdivision entrance
marker sign on property located at 38777 and 39209 Six Mile Road be approved
for two office monument signs only subject to the following condition:
1) That the Sign Plans prepared by James Blain/Robert Wakely, Architects
for Cambridge Center and Cambridge West office buildings, which are
hereby approved, shall be adhered to.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved,
it was
10207
#5-94-88 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Seymour J. Levine for
Laurel Office Park I, II and III for three directional and six address signs
on property located at 17117, 87 and 97 North Laurel Park be approved
subject to the following condition:
1) That the Sign Plans prepared by Seymour J. Levine Architects, Inc. for
Laurel Office Park, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 558th Regular Meeting and
Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 17, 1988 was
adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Donna J. Naidow Secretary
.QLATTEST: t L
Don.ld Vyhnalek,fChairman
jg