HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-06-07 10207
MINUTES OF THE 559th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 7, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
N4mr its 559th 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 7:00 p.m. , with
approximately 65 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski James C. McCann
Donna J. Naidow Jack Engebretson William LaPine*
Michael Soranno Herman Kluver R. Lee Morrow
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 the hearing tonight.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-1-12
Ns" by William J. O'Connell requesting to rezone property located on the south
side of Oakley Ave. , east of Harrison Ave. in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
24, from RUF to R-2.
Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states the sanitary
and storm sewer extensions will be required in connection with the
development of any lots in connection with this petition. The matter
of paving Oakley Avenue is currently before City Council.
Michael Borlin, representing purchaser and builder: The one thing I would like to
point out is just to the east, those four lots were evidently at one
time RUF and they were rezoned to R-2 zoning for the purpose we are
asking to have rezoned now. In addition to that, we would be putting
into that property ranches in there around 1200 and 1300 square feet,
three bedroom with attached garage. We are asking that those lots be
split and then two homes with 75 foot frontage.
Larry France, 15086 Arcola: I am also building a house on the parcel just east of
the proposed property. I am also the President of Board of CB Swim
Club, who is current property owner. One of the functions of the
Board of CB is to act in the best interest of the swim club. We have
put forth at a general meeting, following our by-laws, a vote of the
membership concerning the sale of the property. CB Swim Club is a
10208
private ownership club. We have approximately 220 members. The club
is approximately 28 years old. We have found that because of the cost
involved in running the pool that we can no longer afford the luxury.
At this time we felt the best way out would be to put the property up
for sale. We also feel that another six houses in this area would only
4111"' help the area. My house and the house just east of mine are both in
probably the top 20% of the area cost wise. The RUF zoning there
requires 1/2 acre and most of those lots are 75 foot frontage by 300
feet deep. We feel by keeping 75 foot frontage on property, we are
conforming to use in area. In the interest of increasing the value of
the neighborhood and helping in the rejuvenation of the area and saving
the swim club from financial ruin, we request that you do look
favorably upon this rezoning request.
Mr. Vyhnalek: 28 years ago. Was this land given to you or did you buy it?
Mr. France: Unfortunately we are a volunteer run organization. The best we can
come up with the property was deeded at some cost by the developer of
the neighborhood. We have come up with no indication of a specific
amount but we are showing land contract payments in the form of a
cancelled check to the developer of the property. We have clear title.
We do not have any rights of reversion to builder.
Mr. Kluver addressing Mr. Nagy: Regarding the assessment for the street paving.
You say it is currently before the Council. Who is going to bear the
cost of that assessment?
Mr. Nagy: I don't know if I am qualified to answer that. If the swim club is a
separate entity currently paying property taxes then in turn they would
have to pay their fair share.
'44m' Mr. Kluver: Would they revert to developer if this is approved? Would they be
assessed against developer?
Mr. Nagy: I don't know what the status of the special assessment district is.
Mr. Borlin: As part of the purchase agreement the assessment for paving has been
addressed and the purchaser, Mr. O'Connell, has indicated that he will
bear the cost of any paving assessment.
Mr. Morrow: What is the size homes you were thinking of building?
Mr. Borlin: Right now it is kind of fluctuating because we are not sure how much it
will cost to build up the whole parcel. . It will be typical 3 bedroom
ranches 1150 to 1200 square feet.
Mr. Morrow: John, would there be a numerical character after the R-2 that would fit
that size?
Mr. Nagy: Suffix B would be the size.
Mr. Morrow: What is smaller size?
Mr. Nagy: Without suffix A, B or C the minimum size is 1,000 square feet for one
story ranch.
10209
Mr. Morrow: I would like that changed to R-2B.
Mr. Borlin: That would be fine.
Cindy Thomas, 28131 Oakley: My question is - I am interested in knowing what the
uniformity is going to be for the homes. Are they all going to look
the same and are they all going to be the same size?
Mr. Borlin: We brought a proposal of the outline. We won't be putting in tract
type of home where you will see duplicates. It will have brick on the
face. Very definitely ranch.
Mr. Borlin then showed plans to commissioners and audience.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-1-12 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted,
it was
116-96-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 7,
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 88-4-1-12 by William J. O'Connell to rezone property
located on the south side of Oakley Avenue, east of Harrison Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2 be approved as amended to R-2B
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning represents an extension of an adjacent
zoning district in the area.
2) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the
Nor surrounding development in the area.
3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are
consistent with the developing character of the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.06 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 88-5-1-13
by Lou Ronayne requesting to rezone property located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 5 from RUFC to R-4C.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. However, it should be noted
that an off-site storm sewer extension will be required to develop this
property.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is obvious you want to put in homes like on the north. How many
homes?
Lou Ronayne, 29600 Jacquelyn: Right now I think we can get 60 to 61 lots.
r..
10210
Mr. Engebretson: The area just south of Willow Woods development, adjacent to
Newburgh Road - is it going to be possible for you to develop that
area?
Mr. Ronayne: Right now from different sketches that we have put together we can
develop that but the way the road comes out to Newburgh, we would have
``' to end the last road at the back corner. We are trying to obtain
another couple of acres in order to get it more uniform but either way
we still can make it work.
William Luke, 19358 Newburgh: I would like to have some idea of what kind of homes
he is going to put in.
Mr. Ronayne: As of right now we don't have any drawings but I think the zoning of
that property with lot sizes will dictate what will go in. We are
projecting $160,000 homes.
Mr. Luke: How big of lots?
Mr. Ronayne: 90 x 130. There would be ranches and colonials.
Mr. Luke: I would object to the tall ones. I would not object to ranch.
Mr. Vyhnalek: There is going to be a mixture of ranch and two-story homes.
Mr. Luke: I don't like those big tall ones.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to point out that we can add a condition that they can
build anything that is allowed in R-4 and that would include two-story
houses.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Where are the entrances and exits?
fir.
Mr. Ronayne: The road will go out to Newburgh and we are hoping we can obtain
another piece of property to make that a wider boulevard.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-5-1-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-97-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 7,
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 88-5-1-13 by Lou Ronayne requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road
and Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to R-4C be
approved for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing
character of the area.
2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use
Plan.
3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for residential lot sizes
which are consistent with those in the surrounding area.
Nos.
10211
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.06 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 88-5-1-14
by Ernest A. Bourassa to rezone property located on the east side of
Newburgh Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5
from RUFC to R-4C.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the rezoning proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are asking for the same R-4C - 90 foot lots? If I remember right
you have 11 - 12 lots there out to Newburgh with cul-de-sac?
Mr. Bourassa, 8865 Deborah Court: We haven't finalized that yet.
Mr. Soranno: Did we determine the situation with the parcels north of you? Who owns
that and are you making any attempt to buy it?
Mr. Bourassa: We talked to gentleman and he is not interested in selling. We would
like to purchase it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-5-1-14 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted,
it was
rw..
116-98-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 7,
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 88-5-1-14 by Ernest A. Bourassa to rezone property
located on the east side of Newburgh Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to R-4C be approved for the following
reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing
character of the area.
2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use
Plan.
3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for residential lot sizes
which are consistent with those existing in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.06 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 88-5-1-15
by Ernest A. Bourassa to rezone property located on the east side of Gill
Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA
r.. to R-3.
10212
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from our Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many homes?
Ernie Bourassa, 8865 Deborah Court: 14 to 15.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to remove that house?
Mr. Bourassa: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: I want to get an idea what size homes the gentleman is planning on
building there.
Mr. Bourassa: We are planning as far as colonials go 2300-2500 square feet. We are
planning on cape cods going in there. At least 1650 square feet and
above ranches.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I notice on your prior petition you asked for a C classification. I
will go to the planning staff to see what character should be used for
this square footage.
Mr. Nagy: The suffix letter A would require a minimum dwelling size for a
one-story 1500 square feet, 1 1/2 story 1650 square feet and a two
story aggregate of 1800. A B would be 1300 for one story, 1400 for a
story and a half and 1560 for two stories. C is 1500 and 1800.
Mr. Vyhnalek: C is the letter we want behind it. Can we put in C?
Mr. Bourassa: Help yourself.
'y` Diane Deska, 34254 Fonville Ct. : I would like to know first of all about the road -
where the road would be.
Mr. Vyhnalek: A cul-de-sac right in the middle. That will take place on plat
approval.
Mr. Bourassa: Our first intention is to get off Gill Road.
Mrs. Deska: That is an extra thick wooded area. How much of that is going to be
retained?
Mr. Bourassa: As much as possible. The big trees are out of the way. We just
developed a subdivision at Seven Mile and Newburgh and that was a very
heavily wooded area and we did everything we could to maintain the
trees.
Sharon Amin, 34278 Fonville Ct. : Are they going to save as many trees? Can you keep
a buffer between the subdivision and our back?
Mr. Bourassa: Right now that would be pretty hard for us to say. Right now this is
an easement for Detroit Edison.
Mrs. Amin: Is it going to be changed drastically where it is going to be mostly
houses? We paid premium for the court there because the builder told
us it would never be sold.
10213
Mr. Vyhnalek: Your builder had no right to tell you what was going to happen.
Mr. Bourassa: We have no intention to go in there and strip that whole piece of
property.
`, Mrs. Deska: You mentioned easement. Who will take the brunt of easement? Will the
property along that line, will we separate it half and half?
Mr. Nagy: To the extent that they have to put in their own utilities they will
have to cover their own utilities with the easement on the new
subdivision property. Where they have access to utilities through an
easement, that is what the easement is there for to afford the utility
company a right of access to assess those utilities.
Mrs. Deska: I am not concerned about the easement we have.
Mr. Nagy: I want to make it clear that the purpose for the easement is the
maintenance of the utilities so that utility companies can have access.
Mike Priest: The existing property that this site abuts, because it was platted
first, has a 12 foot easement adjacent to our property. That was the
subdivision behind. We are required to provide the minimum 6 foot
easement. If we had to install storm sewer we also would have to put
12 foot easement in that area. In general we are going to provide 6
foot easement.
Gerry Gonzalez, 19719 Norwich: Basically what the other two ladies asked is my
concern too. We back up to the woods and we pay premium. My concern
is how much of woods is going to stay.
Mr. Vyhnalek: As they say as much as possible.
\r.
Bruck Whittle, 19743 Norwich: I want to clarify a question regarding sewers. Will
there be sewers put in back of these lots? Will that sewer continue
down to feed this cul-de-sac?
Mr. Priest: The storm sewer outlet is at the south end of Fairfax. We will be
connecting into that sewer.
Mr. Whittle: The reason for my question, there are a number of trees. If he is
coming down with sewer will he cut down the trees?
Mr. Priest: We have not completed all our engineering work to be able to answer
your question. I believe with Edison, maybe John can tell me, what is
the new subdivision.
Mr. Nagy: Mayflower Estates.
Mr. Priest: Were they able to utilize Edison facilities?
Mr. Nagy: Yes they were.
Mr. Priest: We may have to go and tap a transformer. There are already existing
storm drains and two catch basins.
`gyri.
10214
Mr. Vyhnalek: They will have to come back with the plat if this is approved and we
will discuss that at the time.
Mr. Whittle: I would like to go on record that everything should be done to preserve
perimeter. When is this development going to take place?
Mr. Priest: Starting right now.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Council has to approve it.
Mr. Nagy: Following this rezoning we have to go through the same hearing cycle so
I don't look for anything to be done until at least fall.
Jim Spencer, 18900 Gill: I moved into my dream house about 16 years ago. Sixteen
years ago there was only my house and this house on all the east side
of Gill Road between Eight and Seven Mile. Now I have a subdivision
built all around me and people walk their dogs and I have trees in
front and they use them to water their dogs and the property of the guy
next door is used for a dumping spot for animals. I am for the
petition.
Stephen Shanks, 34206 Fonville: I don't really raise it as a concern. These 19
residences around this area they have paid for premium property. It
boils down to financial loss for 19 homeowners for the financial gain
of someone else. That is basically my objection. It is a very nice
area and it is a financial loss for myself and the other 18
homeowners.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-5-1-15 closed.
Nor On a motion made by Mr. Morrow, it was
##6-99-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 7,
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 88-5-1-15 by Ernest A. Bourassa to rezone property
located on the east side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFA to R-3 be approved as amended to
R-3C, for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
2) The proposed zoning district will provide for residential lot sizes
which are consistent with those in the surrounding development.
3) The proposed zoning district is consistent with the Future Land Use
Plan.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Kluver: In the Future Land Use it shows the development of the City including
the various commercial developments and indicating where the various
type of residential properties are going to be developed in the City.
10215
I certainly am sympathetic with this last gentleman and 18 homeowners.
However that is property that was owned by private individual and it is
consistent with the area. Many time real estate developers and
developers themselves do not have the integrity they should have when
selling their various types of developments and possibly that developer
'tow did not have the integrity to say yes this is going to be continued to
be developed in a residential manner. Developer did not have the right
to say this would stay a wooded area and that is the individual that
created the animosity you feel toward this developer.
Mr. Morrow: Our position here tonight is that zoning compatible to the area.
That is why I upgraded it to R-3C. We cannot condition zoning and tell
him what trees to save and we think he is an honorable man and will do
whatever he can. It is not his role to be able to talk about every
possible thing. He was just trying to get zoning. They have every
right to sell their property. I am not sure you go along with me but
that is the reason I offered an approving resolution.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
* Mr. LaPine entered meeting at 7:58.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-2-18
by K & S Development requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto
service center on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Hugh and Fremont in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
Sum. they have no objections to the proposal. There is also a letter in our
file from Sharon Wagner expressing her approval of the petition. She
stated Mr. Karas had met earlier this month with her and some neighbors
and they were very impressed with this project.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is my understanding that since our study meeting you have revised
your site plan to comply with zoning ordinances?
George Karas, 1361 Shaw, Walled Lake, Petitioner: Yes we have.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You have seen those plans Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: We have reviewed the plans.
Steve Barley: I represent the firm of Constantine George Pappas. We designed this
for our client. This is the revised plan. We have integrated the
building with a generous buffer on all three sides. This is the same
design just slightly smaller. The building will be hiding all the
elements you normally do not want to see. We have met with the
neighborhood involved and the Commission and had a very productive
meeting with both of them.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You have reduced the size from what to what?
10216
Mr. Barley: I don't recall the previous size of the building. It is now just over
5,000 square feet.
Mr. Morrow: Could you just refresh us about building materials.
Mr. Barley: Decorative concrete block. On the face will be clear glass. it will
\r be the type of block that does not have to be painted.
Mr. Vyhnalek: When we talk about concrete block I get a bad picture.
Mr. Barley: This is not that type of block. It is stuffed block, 8 inches by 16
inches.
Mr. Karas: Combination of split face and score block to create a pattern.
Mr. Morrow: I would not want to put a cinder block up there.
Mr. Karas: We will have a glass curtain wall.
Mr. Soranno: Could you tell me did you cut out a bay or two.
Mr. Karas: Two bays from the back.
Mr. Soranno: Was that general area going to be general retail where they take the
automobile?
Mr. Karas: Right.
Mr. Soranno: If customer wants to have several things done he goes into central
area? Storage of parts and vehicles is not going to be done?
Mr. Karas: That is one of the things neighborhood was concerned about and we are
.,� not going to allow storage of vehicles after hours and no testing of
vehicles on side street and we have storage tank underground.
Mr. Engebretson: Those two bays can they be used for storage?
Mr. Karas: That only means we have two less bays to lease.
Mr. LaPine: Do they meet all of the required parking.
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: How many parking spaces.
Mr. Karas: 21.
Mr. LaPine: How many employees with 6 bays will take up parking?
Mr. Karas: Two per bay.
Mr. LaPine: 12 parking places will be taken up by employees. Can people come here
and drop their cars off as long as they pick them up?
Mr. Karas: We hope that most people will wait for their cars but it is true you
could very well have vehicles dropped off.
`r.
10217
Mr. LaPine: You won't have people parking on side streets?
Mr. Karas: I don't think so.
Mr. LaPine: The bays can only hold one car at a time so you can only be working on
4 or 6 cars at one time? Two bays are going to be used for storage and
6 bays used for working?
Mr. Karas: We have 8 bays and 2 are for storage, 6 bays they actually work from.
Mr. LaPine: Six cars can be worked on at one time. If a car is being worked on for
a muffler and they want air conditioning and somebody else is in air
conditioning bay would they put it outside?
Mr. Karas: If you are leading up to overnight storage, they will have to get car
inside at night. We are offering short type of service.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I did not notice any kind of trash container.
Mr. Karas: There is a dumpster right next to building.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Is there underground irrigation?
Mr. Karas: Yes.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Is it indicated.
Mr. Karas: No.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Could you do that please.
qr, Sharon Wagner, 20417 Fremont: The majority of our neighbors are completely for this
and we have been trying to upgrade this area and get rid of outside
storage.
Ruth Arnold, 20515 Fremont: I have been here over 35 years and this is the first
time I feel we have some positive future plans.
Mrs. Naidow: The lighting, will that be off the building.
Mr. Karas: Yes it will be shielded.
Mrs. Naidow: Is there any signage?
Mr. Karas: We are anticipating a monument sign.
Mr. Kluver: I would like to add additional condition that the samples of the
exterior block be presented to professional staff so they may review it
and have their concurrence.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-2-18 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted,
it was
10218
#6-100-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 7,
1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 88-4-2-18 by K & S Development requesting waiver use approval
to construct an auto service center on property located on the south side
of Eight Mile Road between Hugh and Fremont in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
2 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site and landscape plan dated 5-27-88, as revised, prepared by
Constantine George Pappas, Architect which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to and that the landscaping shall be installed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be
permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
2) That the building elevation plan dated 5-27-88, as revised, prepared by
Constantine George Pappas, Architect which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
3) That there shall be no outside storage of damaged vehicles, vehicle
parts or other such items on the premises.
4) That the samples of the exterior block be presented to professional
staff so they may review it and have their concurrence.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of waiver use standards
and requirements set forth in Section 16.11 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
New surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.06 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 88-5-2-20
by Westin Development, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a
retail shopping center on property located on the north side of Five Mile
Road between Levan Road and Williams Ave. in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
17.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Department of Public Safety,
Division of Fire, stating they have no objections to its development.
We also have a letter from Department of Public Safety, Division of
Police, stating any plantings or berming must not create sight problems
for drivers and/or pedestrians and recommending that the west drive
(and the east drive, if it is replaced) be constructed with a 30 foot
radii, connected by an arc, instead of the radius curb. Also in our
file is a petition signed by approximately 33 residents stating many
ordinance violations that occur regularly in that area and stating they
are convinced that the proposed shopping facility can only aggravate an
already frustrating collection of problems.
10219
Mike Boggio, 255 S. Woodward, Birmingham: I am the architect for the project. This
is the site plan that is revised somewhat from a previous study
session that we attended sometime ago for a 32,000 square foot retail
building with 170 parking spaces utilizing the existing driveway that
services the existing shopping center but removing some of the existing
'tow asphalt and reworking the parking portion to provide some greenbelt
along side property line. This plan is again revised today after a
conversation with Mr. Nagy and what the difference is we have
eliminated a few parking spaces and added a greenbelt area in the Five
Mile Road frontage so our greenbelt will be 15% of the gross site area.
Previously we discussed the possibility of trying to connect the
proposed building with the existing building and there has been some
attempt to contact the owner of existing building but to no avail so we
are going to proceed with our site alone. In terms of the elevation of
the building what we are proposing is a complete brick facade along
entire frontage with sloped metal roofing. We would have a couple of
gable roofs and we are proposing landscaped island that would have
shade trees in parking lot. In terms of our site plan because we are
using the existing drive that comes into the drug store and Borman's
property, we have a parking agreement that allows us to share some
parking so we are sharing about 12 parking spaces. We realize that
existing center is an eyesore and we hope with the addition of this
building that it will create some interest of the existing owner and
some sort of renovation in the near future.
Mr. Soranno: You said you tried to contact the owner of the other property?
Mr. Boggio: We have a representative of Westin Development, Ken Clay.
Ken Clay: We tried to contact the owner repeatedly over the last 3 and 4 months
and have never received a response of any sort. We have attempted
*ft'" through letters and phone calls and attempted to meet with him and we
were not successful. We have done everything that we feel humanly
possible in an attempt to purchase his property so we may use the
entire development.
Mr. Soranno: Why did he not return your calls?
Mr. Clay: I wish I could answer that question.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Who is the owner?
Mr. Clay: Mr. Samuels.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Does he own other property in the City of Livonia?
Mr. Nagy: That is true. In addition to this site he owns two other shopping
sites that I am aware of.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It seems strange you can't contact him when he owns property in the
City of Livonia.
Mr. Clay: His offices are out of state.
10220
Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding that this parcel here and the parcel where
Bormans is is owned by the same individual. You must have had some
contact with him. Have you bought this or do you have an option to
purchase.
New Mr. Clay: We have a purchase agreement.
Mr. LaPine: How did you contact the owner when you bought the property. He has all
kinds of signs in window. It seems awfully strange you couldn't make
any contact. My honest opinion is that site should not be developed
until the whole parcel is developed I just can't see developing this
parcel and then having another strip shopping center right next to it.
It seems actually strange we cannot get together with this man. I
don't know how you made an offer to purchase unless you knew you could
build on there.
Mr. Clay: Everything has already been arranged.
Mr. Morrow: Your company is interested in developing the whole corner?
Mr. Clay: That would be our preference up until recently.
Mr. Morrow: I guess I am as bedeviled as Mr. LaPine. We would like to see that
whole corner developed. I am not sure this is possible but I have got
to believe that the City should be able to establish some sort of
contact with the owner.
Mr. Clay: May I ask a question. Has anyone from the City received any
communication at all from Mr. Samuels or tried to communicate with him?
Mr. Morrow: It sure brings up the question why we are not doing something. Is
there any support that could be lent to your group. It doesn't make
sense if there are "For Sale" signs hanging all over.
Mr. McCann: Back to the purchase agreement. Is there a contingency clause in the
agreement based possibly on zoning and approval of zoning?
Mr. Clay: I would have to look at purchase agreement. I don't think so.
Mr. McCann: You are buying this property whether you are getting this approval or
not?
Mr. Clay: No I have a trigger date.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is zoned C-1. He could put a shopping center in there under 30,000
square feet?
Mr. Nagy: 21,999. He can build a shopping center.
Mr. Vyhnalek: He can build a shopping center under 30,000 square feet but he came in
with a waiver for 32,00 square feet so I just want the audience to know
it is already zoned zommercial and he can change his mind at any time
and go ahead and build something under 30,000 square feet and us and
the Council cannot do anything.
10221
Mr. Kluver: With a project of this magnitude I appreciate your position. I am a
little awed that we are dealing with a phantom developer. The problem
I have is with the site is not the fact the guy does not show up, it is
the type of development that we have, the increase of strip
developments along the mile roads. If all these strip centers were
actually successful and every strip center was fully occupied, I could
look more favorably at your project. My first question would be
develop the existing area and make it more of a successful shopping
center, which it was at one time, rather than coming and building new.
New is not always good. The new ones we have today are less than 50%
occupied. Where are you coming from, from an economical viewpoint. It
is not always the best interest of the City or the citizens to have
that type of development.
Mr. Clay: First of all I would like to re-emphasize we have made every effort to
try and purchase the adjacent property. We are here as a proponent for
this parcel of property not the one next door. I realize it does have
an affect on the community but the only thing we can address is this
parcel. We are talking about this parcel and this parcel alone.
Mr. Kluver: I appreciate your position but if we took the same tactics of
developing the City incrementally I don't think we would have been as
successful as we have been and I look at this as an incremental
development and I don't think it is a good planning practice to do
this. I realize the constraint on you but I can't support something
that is not for the good of the City.
Jeff Wheeler, 36517 Roycroft: I live behind the vacant Farmer Jacks. I appreciate
the amount of money that is going into this project but we have 31 plus
people who have reviewed this project. We don't feel comfortable with
`ow it. We would like to see the whole parcel developed. We could put
some muscle on Mr. Samuels and make him realize there are plenty of
people who live in this neighborhood who will not shop in this shopping
center if it is not developed in a manner that is pleasing to us as
homeowners. We have the largest investment in our lives in our homes.
My house and my home is where I am planning on spending the next 25
years with my family and I would like to develop this whole corner. I
would welcome some development based on current state and city building
codes but not the strip development.
Nancy Lanzetta, 36531 Roycroft: I wish to say we have had a lot of problems. We
have lived there for five years and a new development would be very
much appreciated. Right now we live 50 feet behind Farmer Jacks and
the way Farmer Jacks ran the business we had huge trucks coming in and
running their trucks all night. We caught 7 or 8 mice in our kitchen.
Behind our house the kids are throwing bottles. Last summer we had two
fires. Every afternoon we go out in back and see kids playing and
lighting material and throwing it into dumpster. They come in and pick
up garbage at 5:30 every Wednesday and Saturday morning. The building
is unsightly. I have a two and a five year old and they watch crime in
back yard. I would like to see a lot of changes.
Ron Bacardi, 15411 Williams: Everyone would like to see entire corner developed. I
think a lot of problems that everyone is concerned about are problems
because the building is next to vacant lot. I think if that was
developed it would be an incentive to develop the rest so I approve it.
10222
Arthur Fick, 15308 Williams: I've lived there for 10 years. Prior to time Farmer
Jacks went out we also had a lot of kids running up and down there.
They would throw their pop bottles and I am wondering if there are any
type of restrictions on retail property that can go into this shopping
center?
'41" Mr. Nagy: There would be restrictions on food. No food served except for ice
cream and confectionary. No beer, wine or liquor and no auto related
service.
Larry Danner, 36703 Roycroft: I don't think anyone here is opposed to all
development. I think in our city we have to strike a balance between
what is good for people and what is good for business. I think to
allow a development this size in back of our fence coupled with the
problems we already have would be an intrusion into our privacy. We
need someone to help us. We hope we can count on you to say no.
Reno Cassar, 36505 Roycroft: I just recently moved into area about two years ago. I
moved here from Detroit where I wanted a clean environment for my
family. I have kids walking up and down behind Bormans using foul
languages and you talk to them and you get smart language. To have a
shopping center when you are not even using the other ones. You have
shopping center on Newburgh and Five Mile. There are shopping centers
all along Five Mile. I don't raise my kids to go shopping, I came to
raise a family. I came to Livonia for a nice quiet peaceful community.
John Sanchez, 15384 Williams: I agree about the broken bottles. I have a question
Mr. Kluver. All these commercial buildings going up every square inch
is there a long term agreement that these are not occupied in the near
future. Is this a quick way for somebody for a short term money gain
just hoping they will be rented? What kind of guarantee does Livonia
have that these are all tax paying status.
Nfty
Mr. Kluver: Planning Commission is a recommending board that merely recommends
approving or denying the petition which will then be forwarded to City
Council, which members you elect. They make the final decision. The
decision that is reached here is not always the same decision that is
passed on. I don't think anyone can answer if there are any
guarantees. We do not know if a developer will come in and lease the
property.
Mr. Sanchez: Is there a law that you have to maintain the property with City
ordinances.
Mr. Kluver: Certainly.
Mr. Sanchez: Is the area at Five Mile and Levan like that now?
Mr. Kluver: I recommend that you discuss this situation with the various
departments. I make a recommendation to this committee to write a
letter to Ordinance Enforcement to check the corner. That would be
directed to Mr. Fegan, Director of Building Inspection.
Mr. Sanchez: I would like to know are the businesses paying per square foot nearly
as much as the residential people in taxes?
10223
Mr. Kluver: I would address that to the City Assessor.
Mr. Nagy: Forty-nine percent of total tax derives from non-residential
development. Residential property owners pay 51%.
Now Mr. Sanchez: Is there some way the Police Department would be sure that area is
maintained and looked after?
Mr. Vyhnalek: We will forward that letter on and it will be inspected.
Mr. Cassar: It is zoned C-1, commercial zoning, for shopping center.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You could come in with 29,900 square feet and put in shopping center.
Mr. Cassar: Would that be several different shops?
Mr. Vyhnalek: That would be total.
Mr. Cassar: Is there any way we could get it rezoned?
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is always possible but it will be very difficult because it has been
C-1 for many years.
Mr. Cassar: I wouldn't mind shopping center if it is tastefully done.
Mrs Sobolewski: I would like to ask Mr. Cassar what would you like to see happen on
that corner. Would you like to see that building torn down?
Mr. Cassar: Maybe a dentist office. I am against business. I don't want to have
shopping center where I am trying to raise my kinds. Look what
Fairlane did to Dearborn. It is not a nice neighborhood any more.
Lrr
Mr. Wheeler: The general feeling we got from the people who signed petition, there
were more people in favor of P.S. rezoning. We have come to dislike a
lot of things about shopping centers and the operation of shopping
centers in general. Professional office center would seem to offer a
more viable compromise. There are not 31 houses that back up to that
building but there were 31 people who felt as strong about this as we
do. We are frustrated about how we can approach it. We hope you would
not send a message back to petitioner by approving this.
Mr. Engebretson: I hear the problem from this neighbor as being the existing
eyesore that sits on that corner. It seems to me that these residents
and developers are on the same wave length and it seems there should be
some way the City could serve both residents and developer by having
professional staff contact this land owner and assist the developer in
his mission. If we could get rid of that eyesore by the City giving
assistance perhaps the residents could benefit.
Mr. Morrow: I think we have an opportunity here to at least try. We have a
developer who is interested and most of us feel we would like to see a
development for the whole site and clean that up. I would like to see
this as an opportunity to pursue this while we have interest of
neighbors as well as developer. I am going to offer a tabling
resolution and see if any other members feel the same way.
10224
Mr. LaPine: When I visited that site I thought I was in a used car lot. I am not
thoroughly convinced that this property can't be rezoned. I grant it
has been zoned C-1 for sometime. I am one of the few people who
believe we have reached a point of saturation of strip shopping
centers. It seems to me, I went out and stood by bank and it is a
beautiful building and well landscaped, I think it should be rezoned
P.O. , small office building. The residents would have peace and quiet
at night. I am not in favor of a shopping center on that corner.
Mr. Clay: I want to make one point here. Everyone has focused on existing
building and I guess our petition here was just something to bring up.
Everyone dislikes the existing building. I didn't realize that Bormans
has been vacant for two years but it appears that the owner has a
vacant piece of property that is doing nothing for him. I also hear
tonight there are all kinds of signs "For Sale". I think a few things
you have to consider. Everyone just thinks that retail is bad and that
50% retail is going to be vacant. 1) This particular building is not
an easy building to lease out to a smaller business. 2) A building
will lease out quicker if there is an aggressive marketing program. 3)
To deny this will leave the situation as it is and maybe you should
think about if there is a nice clean development done aggressively then
I would think the existing owner would feel his value has risen for him
to sell center or it would pay for him to put some money into center
and improve it. The less that the area is changed, the more vandalism
you are going to see. I think you have to look to improvements for the
whole area. It has to start somewhere.
Candy Danner, 36703 Roycroft: I feel the developer has his best interst at heart. I
feel he does want to develop a nice building but first things first.
Take care of this monstrosity that is there now. If something isn't up
to City code, why can't the City get after the owner to repair it or
`r6,
let the City tear it down.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-2-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
88-4-2-20 by Westin Development, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
construct a retail shopping center on property located on the north side of
Five Mile Road between Levan Road and Williams Avenue in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
88-4-2-20 until June 28 study meeting.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Naidow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Kluver, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10225
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-5-2-21
by U. S. Homes requesting waiver use approval to construct a single family
cluster housing project on property located on the west side of Merriman
Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the waiver use proposal.
Now
Michael Downes, 26105 Orchard Lake, Farmington Hills: I am the developer. 98 units
of cluster. The reason for waiver - we have to have waiver use in
order to put in cluster.
Mr. Soranno: At the study meeting you showed us dumpster at the rental areas in
cul-de-sac.
Mr. Downes: No we took the dumpster out. They will put their trash out like the
condominiums.
Mr. Soranno: That is fine. Has site plan been revised.
Mr. Downes: Yes the site plan has been revised.
Mr. LaPine: You still have this rental situation?
Mr. Downes: We are going to try and sell all of the units. The only difference we
will make between the units are the units on southern end will have
garages and the units at other end are not as desirable so we are going
to lower rent.
Mr. LaPine: I understand what you are saying. When you open project for selling
townhouses, are you going to advertise as rental units?
Mr. Downes: Our initial advertising will be for total sales.
Mr. LaPine: I love your project but I am not for the rental but if I am assured you
are not going to advertise those for rental right away I am for your
project.
Mr. Downes: It would be foolish to advertise them as rental units right away.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Are they fully brick:
Mr. Downes: Yes.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Do they all have basements?
Mr. Downes: Yes they all have basements.
Mr. Downes then showed the Commissioners a picture of cluster project.
Mrs. Sobolewski: The purchase range?
Mr. Downes: We hope to put in $120,000 and up.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Have you built anything like this in area?
10226
Mr. Downes: In Farmington Hills. This is the first cluster development in Livonia.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I know these are attached but are they attached by common wall?
Mr. Downes: They are attached by common wall but not 100%.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Are these all same color scheme?
Mr. Downes: No. Our intent is to change color scheme from building to building.
Same architectural design.
Mr. Morrow: It is my understanding you will retain the roads and not dedicate them.
Is there any type security at entrance?
Mr. Downes: We haven't made our final decision. We don't want a gatehouse. We
haven't finalized that.
Mr. Morrow: You would have that option?
Mr. Downes: Yes we would have that option.
Alan Gottlieb: I went ahead and I met with all of the homeowners in the area that
are associated with site. I told them if they wanted a fence we would do
so. If you notice that site plan, we have gone ahead and budgeted
close to $200,000 in landscaping. It is very heavily landscaped.
There are over 1,000 trees to be installed. If they want a fence it
would be a gatehouse community. We are going to put a fence next to
the industrial area. We are very flexible. We do want to get our
project under control.
Mr. Soranno: Do the owners of the cluster homes have to pay a maintenance fee for
groundkeeping?
Nor
Mr. Gottlieb: Yes, there is a monthly rate.
Mr. Soranno: Architecturally, I think it has improved.
Debbie Mroz, 20333 Osmus: I have a question on previous map. Alan has told us he
plans on putting houses around outer perimeter. If you approve
cluster, anything else would have to come back for approval?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Correct. He has to come back before us for homes if this is approved.
Ms. Mroz: I think this is one of the better ideas. I have no objection.
Dave Mroz, 2033 Osmus: I was concerned about the plan for the single family homes
that goes around the perimeter. Is there some problems with getting
that approved?
Mr. Vyhnalek: No. That is two separate phases. He will come back with that later
on.
Robert Hastings, 20220 Parker: We met with this gentleman and he agreed to this.
Quite a number of homeowners have agreed to this if this plan goes
through as presented but we are interested in these homes that are
being tied in with this.
10227
Mr. Nagy: I think we should put some language in there. There should be some
consistency and uniformity. We will add some language about walls.
Mr. Gottlieb: The M-1 would be brick wall. RUFA - if they wanted brick wall, I
would do that, otherwise I wanted to put in cedar fence.
Mr. Nagy: We want to have the right to have you come back with the fencing.
'r
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-5-2-21 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-101-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 7,
1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 88-5-2-21 by U. S. Homes requesting waiver use approval to
construct a single family cluster housing project on property located on
the west side of Merriman Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 3 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan designated as sheet 1 dated 5-23-88 prepared by
Michael S. Downes, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered
to.
2) That the building elevation plans designated as sheets 3 and 6 dated
4-4-88, as revised, prepared by Michael S. Downes, Architect, which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the landscape plan and irregation plan designated as sheets L-1
and L-2 dated 4-23-88 and sheet I-1 dated 4-27-88 which are hereby
approved shall be adhered to and the landscaping and irregation shall
be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
`r'' shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
4) That no construction shall occur on the land area designated as Lot 1
through Lot 14 until a Preliminary Plat has been submitted and approved
pursuant to the applicable laws of the City and State with respect to
the platting of lands.
5) That any protective walls or fences proposed to be constructed on the
project property lines shall be architectually compatible with one
another and the design of the fences or walls shall first be approved
by the Planning Commission.
for the following reasons:
1) That the project is well designed and will be an asset to the City and
surrounding area.
2) That the proposed use complies with all general and special waiver use
standards and requirements set forth in Section 20.02A and 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
3) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
4) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the neighborhood.
10228
5) That the proposed project has been designed so as to blend well with
the surrounding neighborhood and to negate the adverse influence of the
industrial property to the north.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.06 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 88-5-2-22
by Schostak Brothers & Co. requesting waiver use approval to construct an
addition to the Wonderland Mall located on the southwest corner of Plymouth
and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the waiver use proposal.
Michael Polsinelli, 29613 Northwestern, Southfield, representing Schostak Brothers:
Consistent with our plans four years ago with the remodeling and
enclosure of Wonderland, we have now been successful in obtaining the
anchor store. What we are showing you tonight is the addition of that
anchor store and some ancillary stores.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are moving the theater out of the mall to the end building.
Mr. Polsinelli: The movies will be relocated to end building.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What store is going to be your anchor?
Mr. Polsinelli: Target Store.
Mr. LaPine: The retail area is additional retail space to be rented.
'4111, Mr. LaPine: Only 6 theaters?
Mr. Polsinelli: That involves a waiver use.
Mr. LaPine: Has the staff looked on the impact another 120,000 square foot of
retail space would have on this area as far as parking and traffic,
etc.
Mr. Nagy: That basic concept came before the Planning Commission back when they
first bought the property. At that time they gave us an overall
conceptual plan for planned future development of the property that
essentially does include not only their addition recently completed
where they moved closer to Plymouth Road and at that time they had a
future anchor tenant at west end and their plans are consistent with
that. They will be in full compliance with all the applicable zoning
regulations.
Mr. LaPine: In your opinion it will not have any additional impact on traffic?
Mr. Nagy: Not that the site cannot support.
Mr. Kluver: On the south of Plymouth Road I realize the City Council has approved a
strip shopping center. How many square feet is that?
Mr. Nagy: 68,000.
\r•
10229
Mr. Kluver: Basically you are putting in 190,000 square feet of retail that is
basically going to funnel into that road system. I realize the
conceptual plan, that it was not complete, but there is an impact in
that area and to me viewing the area right now the traffic that is
there presently without the additional 190,000 square feet is a hazard.
To me I feel you are just going to support a situation where you are
*law going to have a heavy, heavy traffic situation.
Frank Lupu, 29864 Orangelawn: It looks better than it did before. I don't
understand the proposed Target Store being like a K-Mart. I don't
think that is necessary. If this is approved for this building and
they will come back for theater, that is going to create more traffic
flow behind us. We have trucks parking behind there now. The other
day we had one parked for four hours. I am picking up 2 or 3 beer
bottles a week now. This could increase that. People are driving fast
back there. I just don't think this type of store is needed when there
is already one 300 yards to the west.
Sue Martinico, 30060 Orangelawn: My property backs up right behind K-Mart. If they
do develop more, are they going to put in a brick wall. Right now we
have a metal fence.
Mr. Nagy: They will be required to put up a solid unpierced masonry wall.
Mrs. Martinico: I agree the Target Store is not needed with a K-Mart there. It is
going to cause more traffic.
Mr. LaPine: I was always under the impression that K-Mart was on a separate parcel.
They are not required to put a wall up there are they?
Mr. Nagy: There is undeveloped property at the back that belongs to shopping
center.
Mr. Kluver: I would like to offer a tabling resolution until we find out about
theater.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-5-2-22 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 7,
1988, on Petition 88-5-2-22 by Schostak Brothers & Co. requesting waiver
use approval to construct an addition to the Wonderland Mall located on the
southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
88-5-2-22 until the study meeting of June 28, 1988.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, McCann, Soranno, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Naidow, LaPine
NAYS: Morrow, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. Kluver: I would like to make a motion to reconsider and table to study meeting
of June 14, 1988.
10230
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann, and unanimously
approved, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 7,
1988, on Petition 88-5-2-22 by Schostak Brothers & Co. requesting waiver
use approval to construct an addition to the Wonderland Mall located on the
`ter southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
88-5-2-22 until the study meeting of June 14, 1988.
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 88-5-2-23
by Thomas Guastello requesting waiver use approval to utilize property for
general office purposes located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north
of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal.
Thomas Guastello, 38200 Gratiot, Mt. Clemens: We would like to utilize our property
to general office use. Currently we have, what we feel, is a premier
tenant for the area, which is Triple A, and we want to bring them in
for a new use for Livonia. This is life insurance division for Triple
A. In order to fit in proper zoning category it is my understanding we
need a waiver for general offices.
Linda Lalond, 29213 Perth: I have a question about general offices proposed. In
Section 9.03 general offices listed under A and under B there are a
number of things listed. In the future should Triple A vacate, what
could go into this building.
Mr. Nagy: Just general offices. If it is approved for general offices only that
is all it is approved for not banks, savings and loans or convalescent
or nursing homes.
Mrs. Lalond: I received different information when I came and picked up this paper.
Mr. Nagy: You are welcome to a legal opinion from the law department.
Mrs. Lalond: I feel real strong about this. I feel this could be a difficult area
if it is not maintained as professional office or general office. It
is extremely accessible from expressway. We have six foot wall which I
understand was generous. I have a clear view into these buildings as
they do into my home. I have two small children. Yes, we all have
difficulty with change. We have no objection to these buildings but I
want you to know I do feel very vulnerable.
Donna Brierley, 29201 Perth: From my bedroom window to the lot line is 41 feet.
There is only a wall, which is 5 1/2 feet, and then there is parking.
Under professional service I believe the hours are regular - 9:00 to
5:00. In general business will those hours be extended so people can
come and go later?
Mr. Guastello: It is our theory that the time would be the same in both uses. When
we talked to Triple A they indicated that would be their hours.
10231
Mrs. Brierley: Could we have that in legal writing. Are we talking about entire
parcel?
Mr. Nagy: Entire parcel.
Mrs. Brierley: I think there is too much traffic. There are Triple A people in
`r. there. (She showed picture taken from her bedroom window). We have so
much traffic now with these buildings not even done. I hope all you
people will be here in the next 10 or 20 years but what if you are not
and if Mr. Guastello decides to sell this property. They can do
whatever they want in general business. I am definitely opposed. I
have no privacy now. We were first people who moved. None of this
ever occurred to us.
Mr. Soranno: There is no restriction as to hours in this?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mary Sheen, 29139 Perth: If I mispronouce please forgive me. I want to know if we
have right to have a blueprint before they have construction. A few
days ago this lady showed me what is going to happen out my back and I
realize it is going to be big building in our back. I already have a
lot of light from my bedroom. I cannot open my window to get a breeze.
They have bathroom for their construction workers to use and I can see
it from my dining room. I cannot eat breakfast or dinner. One day our
car was almost stolen. I heard this was going to be houses or condos
and now they told me it is going to be professional, doctors or
lawyers. I don't have any privacy in my own bathroom or my yard. I
can't sit in my backyard. We have a lot of noise from I- 96. We
already have Chi-Chi's and Bob Evans and a lot of traffic. When they
say we will do this way, I don't want them changing.
Linda Klimczak, 29149 Perth: I have detached retina. The way the lights are shining
on the back of my house. I have to pull shades down all day so I don't
see sun and now I have to pull shades down all night.
Mary Toovalian, 29305 Perth: I have light in my door wall. I called City Ordinance
this morning. I don't have fence. I am totally vulnerable. I have Mike
Kelly's looking in my yard. I have traffic looking in my yard. Mr.
Guastello and my neighbors had an argument over lot line. I am looking
on parking lot. I have glaring lights, no privacy. I am a widow. I
don't enjoy that. You raise my taxes but what about my property value.
1 have lot 31. Lots 30, 31 and 32, we are going to get the whammy.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is he required to build wall all the way across property?
Mr. Nagy: He is required to build wall all the way around his property.
Mrs. Toovalian: I am out in the open. I get all the noise.
Mr. Nagy: He is building that in phases. This waiver use has nothing to do with
the development of the property. As a result of this waiver use there
is no change in site plans.
Mrs. Toovalian: Do we need more traffic. Don't you think we have enough traffic
there with race track, three restaurants, State Farm and now American
10232
House. We don't have any privacy. What happens to us? My parents
have been residents of Livonia for 31 years. I bought in Livonia
because I thought it was nice. Who am I going to sell my home to? Who
is going to buy it?
Mr. Vyhnalek: I am going to ask Mr. Guastello what are his intentions.
Mrs. Toovalian: I called Ordinance Commission and made a complaint today.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Guastello, I have a few questions for you. What is the light
situation they are talking about?
Mr. Guastello: Pursuant to our site plan we installed lights on the property. I
met with ordinance enforcement officer this morning. I asked ordinance
officer to identify any light he felt or my neighbors felt should be
moved. I indicated we would go out and have an electrician move the
lights. I pointed out that I would go out there this evening and look
at the lights myself and see if there were any problems with
overshooting. I had the electrician with me when the ordinance officer
was there. I was ready to immediately direct that electrician to fix
that light. He said during the day time he couldn't see it and he
would like to see it at night. I have my phone number on property. I
have yet to have a neighbor call me.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are these lights on building?
Mr. Guastello: No they are on poles.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How big is that property?
Mr. Guastello: Approximately 1.6 acres.
\.. Mr. Vyhnalek: In future some building will go in there.
Mr. Guastello: I hope so. We are in the position of trying to best protect the
neighbors. We are currently in the process of trying to get our
irrigation installed so we can put in additional landscaping.
Cindy Zero, 29157 Perth: I live on Lot 16. Right now at this time I would like to
personally ask Mr. Guastello to stand in my bedroom and watch the
glare. I dont need a night light for my bedroom. I would like Mr.
Guastello to know the people he employs are extra rude to people on
Perth. They will tell you one thing and turn around and do another. I
told one of his employees that my husband and I would personally do the
repairs ourselves all you need to do is dump the dirt over the wall.
That was two weeks ago. I haven't seen any dirt yet. I can't believe
you people letting someone like this getting away with this.
Al Bsharah, 29297 Perth: I want to clear up a few things. Mr. Guastello mentioned
we kept his grass mowed. We kept it mowed because he didn't. The
reason he did not continue his wall is because I stopped him. He was
on my property. I had an independent survey that showed he was on my
property. The independent surveyor that I had was called constantly by
Mr. Guastello and also by the city building inspector until he came out
and said there was another way to do this survey. I found original
stakes and he said he was wrong and he wanted to move it. After moving
10233
the stakes his wall will still be on my property. The building
inspector has called me several times asking what I want to do about
it. I said tell him to put his wall up any time but get it off my
property.
Mr. Guastello: We have the survey that we had done. We have been assured we are on
`„ our property. It is our view that the wall is in fact well on our
property.
Mr. Bsharah: I can bring the surveyor over and he can tell you what he told me. I
am firmly against the waiver. We were promised professional building
which we agreed to readily as opposed to all the other things that have
been brought up. Now he wants general office. If any of you go to
Triple A office tell me about the traffic and trying to find a place to
park. What if Triple A moves out. That could be anything. You don't
have any control over what is going to go in there. I think he should
be held to what he promised to all of us and I think you all should
give us some consideration one time instead of Guastello. The building
inspector said he is doing landscaping so I don't really have to. His
landscaping is moving all the dirt and piles of root and trees last
week until my neighbor called and then he put them in neater piles. I
think he should be made to put up the wall and put it on his side. I
am really against this thing.
Ronald Batog, 29125 Perth: I called about the wall and I was told I could thank Mr.
Bsharah for not having a wall. Now is that right. You can still see
the lights through your window. They have big trunks in one area. I
am saying it is a fire hazard. We had a brush fire a couple of years
ago. I would like to know when they are going to start breaking
ground.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy has that been approved by Council.
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it has been approved.
Mr. Guastello: We would like to get started pretty soon. We indicated to this
Commission and Council we would do the other two buildings immediately
and it would be our intention were we able to have this. I don't want
to behoove the fact about the property line. I think anyone who has
been involved in government knows it is not unusual for an inch or two
to be off in a subdivision. The monuments we have on corner of
Schoolcraft and Middlebelt on northeast corner of property line, they
are the same monuments that were shot off at Chi Chi's so I am
comfortable with that. I am not comfortable with the light situation.
I will work with the neighbors on that. We have hired Harold Thomas
Nursery to do our landscaping and we want to get our landscaping in.
We are committed to do everything we can to make it a quality
development. If we were to say today that we would turn off every
light, what would they do for safety. If shields become necessary, we
can do that too.
Mr. Nagy: They have to get a final inspection before Certificate of Occupancy is
issued and whether or not property was damaged, the inspector will see
if it was truly damaged that it will be corrected before final
occupancy.
Lady in audience: Why is Triple A already in building?
\r.
10234
Mr. Nagy: We are aware that Triple A is in the process of moving into building.
They were given notice of a violation. If this waiver is denied,
Triple A will have to vacate property.
Mr. Bsharah: I didn't know that this was Triple A moving in until just now. How in
the world can he allow Triple A to even move in without this waiver.
Now Does he already know he has this waiver approved?
Mr. Nagy: He has a right to petition. He has a right to bring this into the
Planning Commission and if approved that will give them the right to
occupy these premises.
Mr. LaPine: I suggest we close this meeting.
Surujdial Singh, 29323 Perth: I am behind the vacant property. I think I am Lot 31.
I have a serious problem with coming every time to the Planning
Commission and having Mr. Guastello petition for something new every
time. When he came in for Mike Kelly's he was going to do well. He
was going to make all kinds of money. He was going to bring people
from Texas. Every time he comes here there is some waiver being asked
for. I think the Planning Commission should deny this unanimously. I
am peeved that Planning Commission denied and City Council came and
approved. Now look what is happening. I wish all these people who are
speaking now would have come out then.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-5-2-23 closed.
On a motion made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and unanimously
approved, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 7,
1988, on Petition 88-5-2-23 by Thomas Guastello requesting waiver use
approval to utilize property for general office purposes located on the
east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
88-5-2-23 until the study meeting of June 14, 1988.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. LaPine: Could a field check be made to the site and that field check be sent to
meeting of the 14th?
Mr. Nagy: I can certainly ask.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That concludes the public hearing portion of the meeting. The
Commission will now proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Kluver: In connection with Petition 88-4-2-14 I would like to make one comment
in regard to issue and article in newspaper. I want to make a comment
regarding a handout regarding this particular petition by the
petitioners or someone associated with them and the ensuing article in
the Livonia Observer. It indicated some factors that I feel were
basically indicating that the Planning Commission was not acting
properly and I just want for the record to show that at the meeting,
10235
which is public record, of 7-22-86 on Petition 86-5-2-23 by which the
petitioner requested waiver use to construct a restaurant on north side
of Plymouth Road, at that time there was discussion on that particular
petition, he at that time wanted a waiver use to seat approximately 60
people. That petition that evening was denied thereby indicating
obviously to pursue something like that, it didn't have support of the
Now City Planning Commission. Subsequently at the meeting of 10-7-86, the
minutes are public record, the petitioner had a petition, 86-9-8-59 by
Mayflower Development, requesting approval of all plans etc. to
construct a carry-out bakery on the north side of Plymouth Road. Those
conditions as stated in that public record were approved and then I
read an article and I see a handout and nothing is said about public
record. I want that on the record.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was
#6-102-88 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 recommend to the City
Council that Petition 88-4-2-14 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed
use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the
surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage
a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not oversaturate an area
with similar type uses as is being proposed.
4) That the location and size of the proposed use, the nature and
intensity of the principal use, the site layout and its relation to the
street giving access to it will be such that traffic to and from the
site will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly
conflict with the normal traffic of 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: Kluver, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Naidow, Vyhnalek,
LaPine
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10236
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-103-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as
amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that
a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part I of the
Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, by
extending Munger Avenue easterly approximately 1000 feet as situated south
of Six Mile Road, east of Merriman in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14.
AND THAT, notice be given in accordance with Act 285 of the Public Acts of
Michigan 1931, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted,
it was
#6-104-88 RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order
that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to vacate an
existing city right-of-way west of Merriman, north of C & 0 Railroad
adjacent to Paragon Subdivision in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27.
AND THAT, notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the
provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as
amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
'401' On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-105-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as
amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that
a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part I of the
Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, by
altering the location of Glendale Avenue west of Merriman, north of C & 0
Railroad within the Paragon Subdivision in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27.
AND THAT, notice be given in accordance with Act 285 of the Public Acts of
Michigan 1931, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was
#6-106-88 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 558th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on May 17, 1988 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Naidow, Vyhnalek, LaPine
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Kluver, Engebretson
10237
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#6-107-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
88-4-8-18 by J. Howard Nudell Associates for approval of all plans required
'41wr by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a strip shopping center on the southeast corner of Wayne Road and
Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33 subject to the following
conditions:
1) That Site Plan #8807, Sheet SP-1 dated 6/2/88 prepared by J. Nudell
Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That Landscape Plan #8807, Sheet SP-2 dated 6/2/88 prepared by John
Grissim Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That Building Plan #8807, Sheet A-2 dated 6/2/88 prepared by J. Nudell
Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That the approved landscaping be installed on site prior to building
occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Soranno, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Naidow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Kluver, Morrow, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
\. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted,
it was
#6-108-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Sign Permit
Application by Masters Awning on behalf of Senate Coney Island for an
awning sign on property located at 34359 Plymouth Road subject to the
following conditions:
1) The canopy shall be limited to the western face of the building, wrap
around to the northerly side and terminate at the east edge of the
first window on the north wall.
2) Any signage shall be limited to the west side of the canopy and shall
be in compliance with all applicable requirements of the zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 559th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on June 7, 1988 was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST•. ' Donna J. =idow,� Secretar
41110,41110, Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman
jg