HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-11-01 10378
MINUTES OF THE 568th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
r, On Tuesday, November 1, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
Now held its 568th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. , with
approximately 45 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: William LaPine James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow
Brenda Lee Fandrei Sue Sobolewski Raymond W. Tent
Jack Engebretson
Members absent: Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. LaPine 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
C7 reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with
approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them
depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-1-26
by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the west
side of Inkster, north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36
from RUF to R-9.
Mr. Bakewell presented map showing property under petition plus surrounding area.
Mrs. Fandrei: What is the size of the lots to west of the property in question?
Mr. Nagy: 80 x 380.
Mr. Tent: Is Mr. Hyman here, the petitioner?
Mr. Nagy: The City of Livonia is petitioner.
Mr. lent: I recognize that but wasn't this at one time approved by the Planning
Commission and went to Council and Council sent it back to us for
further study, so wouldn't it be normal for Mr. Hyman to be here to
present the type of structure he is going to propose.
Mr. LaPine: I don't believe so. This is strictly a petition to rezone property.
All of that will come up at site plan approval.
Mr. Morrow: I believe, Mr. Tent, that is the reason for the public hearing. All
interested parties are going to comment. Mr. Hyman may very well be
Sow here.
10379
Mr. McCann: Question to Planning Department. One lot that is not within the
petition, that is Lot 59a, I take it that is single family
residential.
``k Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. McCann: What would be the advantage or disadvantage to including it in
petition so in the future if they would want to include that, it
would be within the zoning? The zoning around it seems somewhat
irregular.
Mr. Nagy: I would agree with that. Certainly if they would incorporate that
property as part of the overall area, it would square it off and
avoid an obstacle to the efficient utilization of the overall
property.
Mr. McCann: It would not affect the homeowner's rights in any way?
Mr. Nagy: Not in my opinion, however, to include that property now would
require the readvertising of this petition and delay it further.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, do you have any letters or reports?
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal.
James Butler, 30712 Champagne, St. Clair Shores: I am partner in the firm of
Schmier-Butler Properties. We hold the option on subject property.
We did appear before Planning Commission last year. It was our
intent at that time to build a normal apartment project. However, in
meeting with a number of the neighbors in the area and their various
Nifty associations, it became apparent the neighbors would be a lot happier
if the project was one that was devoted to elderly. We stopped going
forward with that apartment project. We have spent the interim time
in the process of trying to acquire a joint venture partner who would
provide the operational expertise that we feel the project requires.
We have been to the point where we have been successful in acquiring
that expertise now and we are back asking that the property be
rezoned to proper zoning. Our intent is to develop a project with
what's known as congregate living. This would be designed for living
for people who are of an elderly age, I believe they are restricted
to 55, where they are physically capable of taking care of themselves
but no longer want to maintain a home. Each apartment would have own
eating facility but there would also be a central dining facility
available for them along with various recreational things. The
reason we have not developed a site plan yet, we thought we would get
initial zoning before we incurred that expense. The architects for
this project are Rosetti & Associates. In general we would like to
keep building to maximum of two stories. We will try in every way to
make it conform to neighborhood as much as we can. You will have
opportunity to review site plans.
Mr. LaPine: That one parcel is not part of your petition. Have you ever
tried to purchase that parcel?
v,.. Mr. Butler: We made initial inquiries, not only that piece but piece immediately
on the other boundary to the north. In each case the evaluation
�► placed on the parcel was so distorted, at least to be used for our
purposes, that it prohibited us from making that purchase.
10380
Mr. Morrow: I assume this R-9 classification fits in with your plans.
Mr. Butler: The architect thinks he can develop it within that framework.
ti. Mr. Tent I want to thank you for answering all the questions I was going to
ask. Will this be private financing?
Mr. Butler: Yes, to the best of our knowledge.
Henry Binder, 9207 Inkster: I have a question to the chair. Is there going to be
de-acceleration lane as far as Engineering is concerned?
Mr. LaPine: At this time I can't answer that question. We haven't seen any
plans. I will defer to Mr. Nagy.
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it is common practice of our Engineering Department to require
both acceleration and de-acceleration lanes on major mile roads.
Inkster Road certainly is a major mile road.
Mr. Binder: The reason I am asking, the east side of Inkster Road is slated for
an extra lane to be added, then there will be a center lane, a left
turn only lane. There will be a north bound, a south bound and a
center turn lane. That is why I asked whether there would be a
de-acceleration lane. Another question. That piece of property that
is excluded has me quite a bit bothered. I live on Inkster Road and
we were suppose to limit garage sales and the City would permit one
every six months. There are continuous sales on weekends all
throughout the year.
Mr. Engebretson: If I may interrrupt, that is not pertinent to what is going on
tonight. You might get in touch with Building and Inspection
rr. Department.
Mr. Binder: My concern is, the reason I am bringing this up, has every effort
been made possibly to get that piece of property out of the way?
Mr. Engebretson: The only answer I can give you is Mr. Butler has tried to purchase
property. He feels it is not worth it to enhance his project. I
would assume he would probably continue to pursue it. As Mr. McCann
pointed out, he is in favor of rezoning that parcel so if gentleman
ever sells the whole parcel would be R-9 and I assume he will sell it
to Mr. Butler.
Mr. Binder: Does this zoning, Mr. Nagy, fit in with our future plan that we have
had for the City?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it is consistent with our Future Land Use Plan.
Mr. Binder: The perimeter in the rear, there are quite a few people concerned
with having a wall instead of a fence. I said all I could do was ask
the question here tonight. I don't know if this is too far in
advance.
Mr. LaPine: R-9 is considered residential abutting residential and I don't think
a protective screen wall is required although I would assume there is
possibly going to be some plantings back there, a berm possibly, but
a wall is not required.
4..
10381
Mr. Binder: R-9 is only two stories.
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
CThere was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
.. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-1-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-203-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
1, 1988 on Petition 88-9-1-26 by the City Planning Commission to rezone
property located on the west side of Inkster, north of Joy Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 from RUF to R-9, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
88-9-1-26 be approved for the following reasons:
1) The proposed zoning district will provide for low rise senior citizen
housing, a use that is in great demand in the City of Livonia.
2) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
3) The proposed change of zoning is supported by 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. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
' .. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-1-28
by David Perry for C.M.F.C. Investment Company to rezone property located
on the north side of St. Martins Road, west of Newburgh Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, from RUFC to R-7.
Mr. Bakewell presented map showing property under petition plus surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
the site in question may be designated as a wetland and that the
petitioner should review this matter with the D.N.R. under the
provisions of Wetland Protection Act (P.A. 203,1979). We have also
been handed tonight a petition dated November 1, 1988 addressed to
Livonia Planning Commission signed by 27 residents stating as
citizens of the City of Livonia and residents of St. Martins St. they
strongly oppose this rezoning and wish this to remain one family
residential.
Mr. Engebretson: In that petition, John, can you determine whether or not the
residents that would have the privilege granted to the most affected
neighbor status, would they have put into effect here the requirement
rx for the super majority vote by Council.
Mr. Nagy: I am unable to answer that question because petition was just
4,
submitted to me this evening.
David A. Perry, 31250 Plymouth Rd: I have been an attorney in Livonia for excess of
�- 20 years. With regard to this petition, this property is primarily
10382
adjacent to Victor property. With the advent and the construction of
Pembroke, which is a dedicated public street, my clients feel that this
is a proper designation for this property. Hardly anyone is going to
want to have a home on 1/2 acre lots with high rise building staring
lemy down at them. Our proposal is for 32 rental units adjacent to the
vacant property and the balance of our plan is to have cluster
condominium housing somewhere in neighborhood of 40 - 45 units. The
total would be somewhere near 70 units depending on square footage. We
do not intend to have any egress onto St. Martins. The Fire Department
might come in and say we need it but it would not be utilized by this
development. In addition the Victor roads will be in. This site has
access via Pembroke to Newburgh, to Eight Mile and to Seven Mile. It
will in no way burden anyone. It will be an enhancement to the
neighborhood and it would create a buffer of single family residential
into rental units. This parcel is wooded. Every effort will be made to
save the woods. With regard to DNR, we have had some assurances from
people that the wetland designation has been removed. A portion of it
was also on Victor property and engineering studies that were done there
show water table is below elevation by ten to twelve feet but
unfortunately we are having a hard time pinning down person at DNR to
find out what their position is. If it is a wetland and we couldn't
build on it, we would have to abandon our plans. The principal of
C.M.F.C. is a licensed residential builder and also a Livonia resident
who has built in area for last 13 to 14 years. He doesn't feel it is a
wetland. The property owner that owns it now doesn't feel it is a
wetland. The only one that does is U.S. Fish & Wildlife. Again, I
think it would be a good development. The last I heard Parks and
Recreation has no plans to build on the City property north of here.
Mr. Engebretson: Does your client own property and how long?
irmy
Mr. Perry: Petitioner has owned it for several years. My client has purchase
agreement contingent upon this rezoning. In addition, we are
attempting to acquire parcels next to it. We will go with less and
less density.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Perry, I am not sure I follow your client's reasoning as to why
that would not be successful for low density residential.
Mr. Perry: To the north the area is vacant. Something is going to be done about
it. When they built golf course they said soccer field. Now I
understand it may be something else. Within a few years there is
going to be a high use by City. Immediately to west you have high
rise office building. I don't know too many people who want to have
a high rise looking over 1/2 acre type development. I think it is a
logical development on this property.
Mr. Morrow: It is just a matter of degree.
Mr. Perry: That is our feeling. The units will be between $130,000 and
$150,000. We think there is a market for it. There are a lot of
people in my posision who don't want to move but they are rattling
around in a big house and a condominium would be a good place to
move.
10383
Mr. Morrow: I am not saying I agree, but I understand where you are coming from.
Mr. Tent: You indicated two highly usable proposals for property. You indicated
sooner or later it would be used for something. I don't see why we
have to be in such a hurry to develop all the land in Livonia. You
asked who wants to live next to high rise building. They do that all
over. They do it in Toronto. From what I see here, this is sort of
spec zoning. You weren't too certain what you wanted to do with the
project.
Mr. Perry: That is not correct. At this point in time along west boundary we
would prefer to put in rental units and then it will go to
condomoniums. When we first investigated this property there was
some speculation that one corner could be possibly be zoned office in
fact it was the feeling in this town that would be a proper use for
it. We looked at that, we investigated it, but we felt the office
has gone far enough.
Mr. Tent: The wetland question. You indicated the DNR claims it is wetland but
the people you are associated claim it is dryland?
Mr. Perry: The wetland question came up in 1986. At that time it was challenged
by Victor and obviously removed from their portion. There is nothing
that the City Clerk can find that indicates that the DNR has given
anybody approval. It is a cloud that we are trying to clear up.
Mr. Engebretson: As you know, the proposal that you are presenting is contrary to
the Future Land Use Plan. I would like to follow up with Mr.
Morrow's question relative to the logic you present relative to
altering that plan. I believe you said that people would not be
interested in living on 1/2 acre lots looking out at high rise
professional office buildings. How do you feel it would be any more
acceptable to invest $150,000 in condomoniums and look out at high
rise office buildings and find it any more acceptable.
Mr. Perry: I think you could not build house on that 1/2 acre lot for under
$150,000. You are looking at very expensive land because of the
speculative nature of this property. It does have higher value than
prior to Victor. Victor project totally changed outlook for that
area. The Ridouts haven't been able to sell this property to anyone
to build single family homes. They have been attempting to sell this
for several years. If he had that same seven or eight acres a mile
away there would be a subdivision right now.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess some of us are concerned what we are seeing here is the
predicted domino effect of the Victor project intruding deeper into
the residential area. I am sure neighbors are going to have
something to say about that. Perhaps they aren't as concerned as
some of us are.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, what would be the maximum height of development in this
zoning?
10384
Mr. Nagy: Two story.
Larry Harris, 37718 Northland: I don't want it there because we already have
Victor and it should be single family dwellings. That is what it is
zoned.
Paul St. Henry, 37500 Seven Mile: I am not immediately adjacent to this property
but I am concerned with entire area. I am concerned with some of the
information that is involved with this particular piece of property.
We are talking about Victor project in PO III which happens to abut
right up to the subject property. It is being assumed that is going
to be some type of high rise. To my knowledge that would be the
buffer area of the Victor project and the road from that area to
east, I don't think there is going to be any type of development
there. That would be some type of greenbelt, supposedly to kind of
buffer the Victor project. As far as public lands in the Greenmead
area, what's going to be developed there, a lot of that is contingent
on what the City determines to do. Right now there are no sanitary
system or water line that would maintain any type of development in
the area. I think any development is down the road quite a bit.
Basically, what we are determining here is whether or not we are
going to, as a City, look at the development of this area from
Victor Road to the south or whether we are going to look at
continuation of the existing development from Seven Mile area and as
it goes towards north are we going to develop from St. Martins north
or Pembroke to south. I would be against this situation at least for
a while.
Gary Markwardt, 37785 St. Martins: I think your sketch is inaccurate. The lot
;`r that abuts the 100 foot eastment on Victor is vacant and I own it. I
believe all the houses are shifted down one lot. The gentlemen behind
me owns the other one. A few points. First, as you can clearly see the
area is residential. The nearest multi-family is a mile away so this
would clearly be a change. I would also point out that petition for
multi-family in other places close by have been refused by Council.
Adjacent to Pro Golf there was a request. The property south of Seven
Mile Road, the old golf course, their request for multi family was
refused. So clearly I think the Council and this body has taken the
position they want to maintain this area as residential and I support
that. You have already pointed out this is contrary to land use of the
City. The comment was made there was difficulty in selling this
property. I'm sure this property doesn't perk because it is very wet
and there is a lot of standing water back there especially in the
springtime so I doubt if you could put in septic in that area. Until
recently there have been no sewers. There are sewers now down St.
Martins. I think another point against it is that Willow Woods across
the road from St. Martins is proof that very costly residential property
is desirable in this area. The amount of traffic I see going into
Willow Woods and looking at their model is nothing short of phenomenal.
There is a lot of building going on in that development. I think very
costly residential homes in that area will sell contrary to what
petitioner has said. Overall, I think the residents in this area are
going to have to learn to live with the Victor project and that is a lot
to ask. I was very much against Victor but I am willing to accept it
and to live with it. I think residents have a right to expect that this
�,., area will remain residential.
10385
Tom Sata, 37741 St. Martins: I own two pieces of property directly south. I don't
want to take the time to reiterate what Mr. Markwardt said. However, he
is correct. He hit the nail right on the head. We do disagree with the
proposal as it appears. However, in my case anyways, if it came to it,
I think I could agree that the southerly 200 feet of that parcel remain
either RUF or single family residential and if any development occurs
north of that line, I think I could almost live with that. I would like
to see it stay all single family residential but multiple back a couple
of hundred feet, I could live with that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-1-28 closed.
Mr. Tent: I would like to offer a tabling resolution until unanswered questions
are answered and we have had an opportunity to study area and study
situation.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
1, 1988 on Petition 88-9-1-28 by David Perry for C.M.F.C. Investment
Company to rezone property located on the north side of St. Martins
Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC
to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
88-9-1-28.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei
NAYS: McCann, Morrow
ABSENT: Vyhnalek, Kluver
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-1-29
by C. Tangora for Stella Construction to rezone property located on the
northeast corner of Melvin and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11
from P.S. to R-7.
Mr. Bakewell presented map showing property under petition plus surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the rezoning proposal.
Charles Tangora: I represent the petitioner, Stella Construction. We are here on a
petition to zone an office zoned piece of property to multi-family,
R-7. We appeared before the Planning Commission study session and
have represented to you and have represented to people in area that
the petitioner desires to build condominiums here. We have indicated
the cost will be in the area of $100,000. There are going to be 20
condominiums and we do have a rendering that we showed to Planning
Commission last week that we would like to put on the board if there
are any residents here from that area they would have an opportunity
to see what I think is a very nice multiple development. Each one of
units is two bedroom unit. They have enclosed garage that is built
`�.. into unit. It is all one floor. The height of the building fits in
with
10386
area, approximately 21 - 22 feet maximum. The garage area fits into
building design. There is one enclosed garage for each unit. I would
be happy to answer any questions the Commission has.
ti.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Who is Stella Construction?
Mr. Tangora: Stella Construction is a company that is made up of two individuals,
Maria Stante, who has been a long time Livonia resident, and Bill
Steiner. They are presently finalizing a condominium development in
Plymouth. I have been out to the development. I have been very
impressed with it. It was a development that was started by Stella
Construction and had no difficulty selling out completely. I
understand it is completely sold out.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Stella is purchaser of property and also will be developer of
property and sellers?
Mr. Tangora: Yes, they will do everything.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Will the access be on Melvin or Clarita?
Mr. Tangora: They are not far enough along to have a detailed site plan. I would
suspect obviously along Melvin there would be an access. I am not
sure yet.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Tangora, we asked this at the study meeting, and I would like to
go on record with that, the proposal that you have here, which is
very attractive, is this the type of development you intend to use.
Mr. Tangora: Very definitely. If you had the opportunity to see the Stella
`. development in Plymouth, it is similar but it is not the same as what
you see on rendering but if you had the opportunity to see it, it's
quality construction.
Mr. Tent: Many times you come in with pretty pictures and then they come in
later and downgrade it. For the record, you intend to provide this
type of condominium development.
Mr. Tangora: Yes. You can take my word for it. I know both of these people and
they are quality people. They have been here for a long period of
time and they have a good track record and they intend to keep up the
track record.
Mrs Fandrei: To answer Mr. Tent's concerns. I have been to the property in
Plymouth that they are in the process of completing. I have been
through units and it is a very attractive, well built complex. I was
impressed also.
Mr. McCann: If you do get your zoning, what time table are you looking at to
start construction?
Mr. Tangora: It would probably be late spring.
Mr. McCann: Had you or your client considered or worked towards the property just
to the east towards extending the project that way. Is that in your
plans?
10387
Mr. Tangora: Not at present time.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Tangora, did I hear you, have you approached any homeowners in
immediate area regarding the zoning.
Mr. Tangora: I have not personally, Maria Stante has.
Maria Stante, 18922 Wayne Road: I called Joyce Artman and I had meeting with her
and I invited her to come to project in Plymouth so she graciously
invited three other ladies and we showed them our project. They were
impressed and three ladies are here in attendance.
Mr. Morrow: You say they were in favor of rezoning.
Mrs. Stante: Yes, they were impressed. My partner and I will answer any questions
they have for us.
Mr. Morrow: As you know, it is not necessary to contact the neighbors and we like
to thank the people who do take the time to contact the neighbors.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Tangora, has your client ever considered putting single family
homes there? I personally have a problem with R-7 across from
residential when, in my opinion, you could very easily build single
family homes. What's the difference?
Mr. Tangora: I think obviously the answer to that is the cost of the property.
Here we have a piece of property that is zoned for office use. It
doesn't reflect the value where you can develop single family homes
on it.
�,.
Mr. Engebretson: I agree. I would much prefer to see single family homes. On the
other hand I think the proposal is far more desirable than an office
building from the standpoint of neighbors. Mr. Tangora, I believe
during study meeting you indicated these are all two bedroom units
and I believe you also mentioned the size would be at least 1100
square feet per unit. Are you still thinking that way?
Mr. Tangora: Yes, that is what they intend to build.
Mrs. Fandrei: Again, I realize you do not have the site plan developed, I wonder if
you would know how much off-street parking they might be providing
for? I find many condominium complexes don't allow enough off-street
parking, parking for visitors in the complex. That could be a
concern of these neighbors.
Mr. Tangora: There will be at least two per unit for off-street parking plus some
limited extra parking for visitors.
Mr. LaPine: What Mrs. Fandrei has brought up is a very important point. I assume
at this location we are not going to have a clubhouse. Consequently,
when someone has a party where they have 8 to 10 couples coming, you
will really have a problem in condominium situation where they will
park. I think we should look at this when we look at site plan.
• 10388
Patrick Loftus, 18600 block of Doris: There are a few problems we are going to
have with condominiums. First of all the traffic in this area is
terrible. You have Seven Mile and Middlebelt and right across the
street you have Livonia Mall and Livonia Mall has just been enlarged.
Getting out of our street, especially during Christmas, is really
impossible. If you do, it is just a raceway. Clarita also is not
paved. This is going to pose a problem with parking that Brenda
brought up. Condos are not aesthetically pleasing. It is just not
going to look good. Would you like to live in a house across street
and stare at condos. The Council in past has more or less approved
condos on major roads. On main streets they are fine but not streets
in middle of neighborhood. I think some of you people are of the
fact it should remain residential. I agree. You can get at least
five 1/2 acre lots out of that. It would make the person who owns
the property some money. Since the City is more or less developed
with R-7, multi family in this area, this area should be given back
to families.
Mr. McCann: Considering that this is zoned professional service right now, which
is office building, as one Commissioner I look at this and I look
behind it and trying to sell people individual properties when they
have C-1 surrounding property, it seems to me it might be a natural
buffer especially when we are talking single story units that are
fairly nice. It might be a nice buffer. Considering they already
have zoning for office, this would be a reduction in amount of
traffic. Don't you feel this would be a compromise?
Mr. Loftus: You have a point. I think, in my opinion, along with traffic
problems, R-7 would be beneficial to everyone in neighborhood. I
agree it would be a perfect buffer zone.
Jim Kozlowski, 18973 Melvin: I am a new resident. Currently been there for two
months. My concern is since I have been there I noticed the traffic.
There is a lot of traffic going down the street on Melvin. I have a
problem with that being the only access we have to mall. Clarita
gets a lot of traffic. I am afraid if we put in multi-family housing
traffic will be much greater. Also because of traffic I have had my
mailbox blown up, hit with a bat. Coming here tonight, I was not
notified. If it wasn't for my neighbor I would not be here tonight.
It concerns me I wasn't notified. It also concerns me that when the
lady talks about interviewing people around neighborhood, I heard
maybe one person and three other ladies. That does not take into
account enough people.
Nancy King, 18947 Melvin: I have lived here for 21 years. I am not against this.
This is the lesser of all the evils. We were asked to rezone that to
professional service way back then. If you put single family homes
in there you are going to have more children and more traffic. With
condos generally we will have people that are working. There will be
more traffic in evening not during the day. The only other thing I
can see he said the Engineering Department said it was okay and that
is probably true but we have water line that is bandaged all the way
to Curtis. I was one of the ladies that went out to Plymouth to see
them and I do like them. I am across the street. I don't mind
looking at them.
\..
10389
Joy Hartmann, 29514 Pickford: I wonder where you gentlemen were years ago, months
ago when they decided this was R-7. I was one of the women who
contacted you. I am so tired of appearing before groups of people
objecting. We did go see these condomoniums. If they guarantee us
they are going to be condominiums, I want you to know they are very
nice. I think it would be an asset to that corner.
Mr. Tent: Mrs. Hartman, you said you are tired of fighting R-7. My question
is, now you are in favor of this type of development?
Mrs. Hartmann: I am really and truly for that to go in that area. I think it
would be an asset in that area. Someone was saying something about
so much traffic. Twenty units are going in there so twenty more cars
is not going to make that much difference. There won't be school
children in there. It looks more like retiree's age and they do have
greenbelt in the center. The thing that concerns me, how many
apartments are going up in that R-7 on that dirt road? I want you to
reassure me it is going to be condominiums and not going to be
apartments.
Mr. Tent: I appreciate hearing your comments because you do your homework and I
was concerned whether you did see it or not.
Robert Detter, 29764 Clarita: I wasn't invited to this and I live right next door
and no one contacted me to go see it. I would like to know just how
far they will be from boundary line.
Mr. Nagy: Ordinance requires 75 foot setback from single family residential
property.
yam, Mr. Detter: As you can see we are getting real sandwiched in. There was a
petition that was turned down to rezone this whole area but it was
turned down but like I say I am like Nancy I don't know whether to be
for or against it because they could build P.S. right now if they so
desire, so I don't know what to say. Six of one, half a dozen of
another but it is 75 feet. I guess I say I am not objecting then.
Joe Sailors, 18425 Melvin: I am not opposed to development like this. A small
number of condominiums would be a nice thing on that site. My
concern is R-7 where we have rental units and renters who don't have
long term ties to neighborhood. Small condominium development,
however, is better than office space.
Mr. McCann: They would have to come back before us to get his approval for site
plans and I believe, speaking for myself and I am sure other members
of the board feel the same way, if they were coming back for rental
units, he would have a much tougher time.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. McCann I would just like to clarify that. Once the zoning is
given to R-7 and if petitioner, and I don't say this is going to
happen, cannot develop property and he sells it off to another
developer as R-7, I don't think the Commission, at that stage of the
game, Mr. Nagy correct me if I am wrong, can determine it has to be
condomoniums there? It can be rentals. Am I right?
10390
Mr. Nagy: That is right. You cannot condition zoning.
Mr. Engebretson. I don't think this is going to happen. Mr. Tangora has appeared
before this Commission many times and if he says it is going to be
R-7 with condominiums, I will take his word on it.
Mr. Tent: What you say is probably true but the fact is this Commission here,
when they come in with a site plan if they did dispose of the
property, the other petitioner would have to satisfy us and if they
came in with rental units we could make an effort to keep it from
materializing.
Mr. Engebretson: It is true to a point but if they came in with a plan that met
all the requirements of the City of Livonia. I think we would have
to approve it.
Mr. Tent: They would still have to get our approval.
Mr. Engebretson: We would be hard pressed to deny it if it met all the
requirements.
Barb Tucson: We have fought off high rise developments, used car lots and
everything else. This seems to be a viable compromise and I have
seen the site. They came to us before, which the other developers
did not do, so we went and we saw the units. They will be single
story. They are very nice units. We are pleased to find this viable
compromise.
Mr. Morrow: I am pleased you clarified the zoning. I have no reason to think it
will not be developed as it is tonight. We have a P.S. , which is a
step down when it abuts residential, which we have an opportunity to
get in a low density type residential. It is uncommon for P.S. to be
that deep into a residential area. For that reason alone I can
support that rezoning. I think we are lessening the intensity of
that zoning by going to R-7.
Mr. Engebretson: I too am concerned that this R-7 zoning is a treacherous thing
for City and for neighbors in that we could see something develop
where the builder could sell his property and suddenly someone comes
back and develops apartments but I think the risk in this particular
situation is minimal because we have developer with a track record.
I think if Mr. Tangora stands here tonight and tells us he is going
to put in condominiums, that would go a long way towards putting my
mind at rest.
Mr. Tangora: Again, I recognize we cannot make any guarantees. We can make a
representation and I can only tell you that the people I represent
are honorable people that have good track record. The City Planner
tells you, you can't condition the zoning. You have to use your gut
feelings that they are honorable people who will follow through.
That is about all you can do and that is same with every R-7 zoning
you have before you.
Mr. Detter: This other R-7 down the street at original rezoning presented condos
for that and then tried to change to apartments. I guess now he is
10391
going back to condos but this gentleman did change his plans after he
got his rezoning. Like the gentleman said you can't guarantee, but
you can put pressure on the developer to see that he live up to his
guarantee. If you don't accept guarantee, you can't hold him to it.
Mr. Morrow: We have a very real opportunity to make less intensive use in that
__ area from strictly zoning viewpoint. We do have an opportunity but
there is no guarantee of it. I think this P.S. , being a higher
intensive use, residential would be more desirable than P.S.
Mrs. Fandrei: Bob, after having seen Mrs. Stante's development and the
representation that has come before us, I feel she and her partner
are being sincere with what they are proposing to do.
Mr. Tent: One more question. I, as one Commissioner, would hold these people
to their commitment. Every developer who comes before us paints a
beautiful picture and when it comes to actually building it, they
plead poverty, they want to downscale it. When I was involved, I
would fight for it. This is what they are promissing, this is what
they are going to build.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-1-29 closed.
On a motion duly made by Jack Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
adopted, it was
� #11-204-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
1, 1988 on Petition 88-9-1-29 by C. Tangora for Stella Construction to
rezone property located on the northeast corner of Melvin and Clarita in
ort
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from P.S. to R-7, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to City Council that Petition 88-9-1-29
``"' be approved for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning is in keeping with the developing
character of the area given the multiple family residential project
currently under construction just three parcels to the east.
2) The proposed change of zoning will provide a buffer or transition
zone between existing single family development and heavy commercial
development to the north and east.
3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a variety of housing
types to serve the City.
4) The proposed zoning district will be more compatible to the
residential neighborhood than the existing P.S. , professional
service, zoned district.
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. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
10392
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-2-46
by Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver use approval to expand an
existing restaurant to include additional seating and a banquet hall
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and
Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 and to utilize a Class
C liquor license therewith.
W.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter in
our file from the Inspection Department stating the following
deficiencies or problems were found: (1) Too many seats are proposed
for banquet facility. (2) Deficient parking. (3) This is a proposed
addition to a non-conforming building. (4) The landscape area does
not begin to approach 15%.
Tom Paljusevic, 34453 : We have been in business since 1981. It was a Lums
restaurant before we bought it. It was a smaller building. We added
on in 1983. We have been doing business for seven years. We feel we
need a bigger facility because we have a lot of calls for banquets
and parties. We are proposing to enlarge building. We have piece of
property. If the seating capacity is problem, we are willing to come
down to whatever requirements are. I have picture of what it is
going to look like.
Mr. Morrow: We heard the report from Building and Inspection Department. You
have deficiencies on your site that do not conform with the
ordinance. We are hard pressed to consider this to my satisfaction.
You have too little parking. Your landscaping doesn't meet minimum
requirement and you have ZBA appeal action that would have to be
taken care of. How would you respond to this?
Mr. Paljusevic: I don't know the answers now but we are willing to do whatever is
'*11.
necessary.
Mr. Morrow: There is the normal traffic concern in that particular section of
Plymouth Road, which probably is one of the most congested areas in
the City. It would just add to the traffic concerns at that
particular corner. The traffic concerns are also part of my concern
in addition to the other four things.
Mr. Paljusevic: There are three driveways on this property. One from Milburn and
two from Plymouth Road. I don't really see a problem with traffic.
The traffic would be around 6:00 in evening.
Mr. Morrow: You are asking for waiver use for Class C liquor license. You are
trying to expand building. We do not have anything before us tonight
that would even warrant our approval. We couldn't approve it if we
wanted to because of the ordinance deficiencies.
Mrs. Fandrei: It sounds like there are enough deficiencies that the property isn't
adequate and another piece of property might be more appropriate for
what your're designing.
Mr. Tent: You really have outgrown your area but I don't see how this
particular building can be put into that site and handle all the
deficiencies.
10393
Mr. Paljusevic: We have site plan. Haven't you seen it. We really don't have a
problem bringing the seating capacity down. If what it takes is for
us to buy another piece of property, we will buy another piece of
property that is available there.
Mr. McCann: You have a rather extravagant building with large capacity.
+i, However, because of the area you have, you would have to reduce
seating, you would have to reduce building size, you would have to
reduce parking, you would have to comply with landscaping problems.
There is nothing the board can do this evening with what you have.
If you come back, come back with much smaller version of what you are
trying to do.
Marilyn Barlage, 30536 Elmira: Archie's is well known in neighborhood. No one
objects one iota. Our property would be right up against the
parking area. I understand at one point a funeral home wanted to go
in there and we turned it down. Unfortunately, many of my neighbors
cannot be here tonight. We are really concerned about traffic on
Plymouth. K-Mart is building a huge facility on the north. Milburn
gets an awful lot of traffic.
Mr. LaPine: You are opposed to petition?
Mrs. Barlage: Yes, coming all the way back to lot line.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-2-41 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-205-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
\r. 1, 1988, on Petition 88-9-2-46 by Archie's Restaurant requesting waiver
use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a
proposed banquet hall addition to an existing restaurant located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does
hereby deny Petition 88-9-2-46 for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with the special and general waiver use
standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the standards and
requirements set forth in Section 18.38(13) and (17) with respect to
off-street parking and with Section 19.06(j) with respect to area
devoted to landscaping.
3) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
4) That the proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with
the adjoining uses in the area.
5) That the location and size of the proposed use, its nature and
10394
intensity, the site layout and its relation to streets 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 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-2-47
by Mt. Hope Memorial Gardens requesting waiver use approval to erect a
pole barn within a cemetery located on the east side of Middlebelt Road,
north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter in
our file from the Inspection Department stating that while this
proposal complies with all zoning requirements for this use, it's
chiefly due to the fact that there really aren't any. The size of
the structure and its visibility from Middlebelt should give pause
for some kind of aesthetic review.
Abe Green, 17840 Middlebelt: The purpose of this building is to store machinery
that right now most of it is exposed to public view. We want to
enclose it in this building to get it out of view and to get it out
of weather.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Green, When I examined this property, one of your workers
suggested to me that the two trailers were going to remain, that they
'"" were going to be enclosed in the pole barn.
Mr. Green: No, they gave the wrong impression. We have a trailer that we have
been using as an office building. They gave us a year to remove that
trailer. The existing building is part office and part storeroom.
When we build this building all the equipment will be housed there.
The balance of the existing building will be converted into office
building and the trailer will be removed.
Mr. Engebrtetson: You said one of the reasons you wanted to do this was to get the
equipment enclosed in this building. Isn't a pole barn an open
structure?
Mr. Green: No, it is closed on all four sides and it has exit and entrance gates
on opposite ends.
Mr. Engebretson: I am curious why it is necessary to have a structure 23 feet in
height. What kind of equipment are you storing in there.
Mr. Green: Tractors, large lawn mowers, watering tanks, etc. Right now it is
exposed to public view. It is 22 feet, 6 inches at peak.
Mr. McCann: What type of building materials are you planning on using?
10394
intensity, the site layout and its relation to streets 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.
,f, 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. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-2-47
by Mt. Hope Memorial Gardens requesting waiver use approval to erect a
pole barn within a cemetery located on the east side of Middlebelt Road,
north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Bakewell presented map showing property under petition plus surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter in
our file from the Inspection Department stating that while this
proposal complies with all zoning requirements for this use, it's
chiefly due to the fact that there really aren't any. The size of
the structure and its visibility from Middlebelt should give pause
for some kind of aesthetic review.
Abe Green, 17840 Middlebelt: The purpose of this building is to store machinery
that right now most of it is exposed to public view. We want to
enclose it in this building to get it out of view and to get it out
of weather.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Green, When I examined this property, one of your workers
suggested to me that the two trailers were going to remain, that they
were going to be enclosed in the pole barn.
Mr. Green: No, they gave the wrong impression. We have a trailer that we have
been using as an office building. They gave us a year to remove that
trailer. The existing building is part office and part storeroom.
When we build this building all the equipment will be housed there.
The balance of the existing building will be converted into office
building and the trailer will be removed.
Mr. Engebrtetson: You said one of the reasons you wanted to do this was to get the
equipment enclosed in this building. Isn't a pole barn an open
structure?
Mr. Green: No, it is closed on all four sides and it has exit and entrance gates
on opposite ends.
Mr. Engebretson: I am curious why it is necessary to have a structure 23 feet in
height. What kind of equipment are you storing in there.
Mr. Green: Tractors, large lawn mowers, watering tanks, etc. Right now it is
exposed to public view. It is 22 feet, 6 inches at peak.
Mr. McCann: What type of building materials are you planning on using?
0�
10395
Mr. Green: It is difficult for me to give you the real definition, I don't
understand building materials, but it is the same type of building
that Beth El Cemetery put in their cemetery. It is metal structure
ma, with insulated roof. It has the same type of shingle as existing
Mos.� office building. The color is going to match the office building.
Mr. McCann: When I hear steel building, I am thinking corrugated steel building.
Mr. Green: I furnished 20 plans.
Mr. McCann: It doesn't show us what people are going to see from the street.
Mr. Green: It will all be inside fenced area. There will be a small part
showing. The colors will match existing building and asbestos tiles
as on existing building.
Mr. McCann: You are going to have a pitched roof and the walls will not be seen?
Mr. Green: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: My question was partially answered by Mr. McCann's question as far
as building materials. Somehow a pole barn on Middlebelt Road, one
of the busiest streets in Livonia, doesn't seem to go along with my
way of thinking. I don't associate pole barns on Middlebelt Road
made out of corrugated metal. I could not vote for it.
Mr. Green: It is not made out of corrugated metal.
Mr. Tent.: How long have you owned property?
... Mr. Green: Twenty years.
Mr. Tent: I am very familiar with the area, Mt. Hope Cemetery. I have lived in
that area for 35 years. I know that cemetery was a mess for a number
of years. You made a big improvement up to this point. You could
probably have solved all our problems and answers if you would have
brought in a picture to show us the type of construction because we
are confused as to what you are talking about building. We want
something that is attractive. We would like to see that. As one
Commissioner, I would like to see an elevation of your proposal
showing exactly what it will look like. I am not prepared to vote on
this tonight.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Green, you have 68 acres there? For the life of me with 68
acres, can't you find some place on that 68 acres way back where you
could build this building. It seems to me, as Mr. Morrow pointed
out, if you were not on Middlebelt Road, in my opinion, all you
should have visible there is your office building. Everything to do
with maintenance should be buried in the back. I would have no
objection if it was buried in the back of the cemetery. I have some
objection to it where it is now.
Mr. Green: There are no sewers, no water. The manager's residence is out of the
main office and he is in charge of the people that are maintaining
• the grounds and are using the equipment.
No.
10396
Mr. LaPine: What would you need water for?
Mr. Green: Lavatory facilities, etc.
Mrs. Fandrei: You indicated that you are planning on leaving fence up once you put
the pole barn up. Why?
Mr. Green: Just to enclose the whole area. Were you out there?
Mrs. Fandrei: Yes I have been out there twice.
Mr. Green: Well inside the fence they also use part of it for warehouse, for
storing certain types of material.
Mrs. Fandrei: I would imagine that would be in the barn.
Mr. Green: If it is a big objection, we could take the fence down.
Mrs. Fandrei: I can appreciate why the fence is there now but it looks like a
temporary structure that might collapse. It is unsightly, in my
opinion. Also, you refer to the materials on the pole barn. The
drawing showed that the shingles are asphalt and not tile.
Mr. Green: I said asbestos. They are shingles.
Mrs. Fandrei: They are asphalt shingles?
Mr. Green: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: Painted steel wall panels?
'01r
Mr. Green: That is what we have on the whole thing now.
Mrs. Fandrei: I agree with some of my fellow Commissioners, I don't feel good
about having this size of a building along Middlebelt, which is a
major thoroughfare. There are too many residential properties in the
area and I feel this size would be unsightly.
Mr. Green: I could bring photographs.
Mrs. Fandrei: As I drove by Beth El, I didn't get the feeling that the structures
were pole barn or temporary. They appeared to be brick. They
appeared to blend in. I guess that is what we are looking for
something that will blend in. A relocation might be something we
would be more open to.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-2-47 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
adopted, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
1, 1988 on Petition 88-9-2-47 by Mt. Hope Memorial Gardens requesting
waiver use approval to erect a pole barn within a cemetery located on
the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Six Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 88-9-2-47.
10397
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-2-48
by Merritt & McCallum for St. Edith Church requesting waiver use
approval to renovate and construct an addition to the existing church
located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road and
Jamison Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this proposal. We also have in our
file a letter from the Inspection Department stating no deficiencies
or problems were found.
Stuart McCallum, Architect for Church: We are proposing to add approximately
10,000 square foot addition, expand parking lot, adding additional
landscaping to the site.
Mr. LaPine: You have a rendering there.
Mr. McCallum: It is a site plan showing existing church. This is the new proposed
church addition. We are expanding the parking lot and adding to the
capacity of it and adding landscaping.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. McCallum, what is the present size of seating capacity?
Mr. McCallum: About 600 to 650.
Mrs. Sobolewski: What other kinds of inside renovations are being done?
Mr. McCallum: It has been a two and three stage project. There was the original
building, which is the center portion. The portion to south was
built a few years later, then that became the church and the church
became the fellowship hall. Now we are building the new proposed
church. The present church will become fellowship hall and the
original church will be offices.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Is it just because the membership has increased?
Mr. McCallum: No it is just a general overall growth of the parish.
Mrs. Sobolewski: The building materials will match?
Mr. McCallum: Yes.
Mrs. Sobolewski: How about height?
Mr. McCallum: Forty-one feet. It all slopes down and will tie in with existing
building.
Mrs. Fandrei: Do you have sprinkler system in your landscaping at this point?
Mr. McCallum: There is nothing showing on site plan but we are proposing to make
provision for sprinkler.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-2-48 closed.
10398
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and
unanimously adopted, it was
#11-206-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
1, 1988 on Petition 88-9-2-48 by Merritt & McCallum for St. Edith Church
requesting waiver use approval to renovate and construct an addition to
the existing church located on the west side of Newburgh Road between
Five Mile Road and Jamison Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 88-9-2-48 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan marked Sheet 1, dated 9-26-88 prepared by Merritt
& McCallum, Architect which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the building elevation plan dated 9-26-88 prepared by Merritt &
McCallum, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the landscape plan marked Sheet Ll, dated 9-26-88 prepared by
Merritt & McCallum, Architect which is hereby approved shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in full compliance with all of the special
and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in
Section 4.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Gill Orchards Subdivision proposed to be located north of
Seven Mile Road east of Gill Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Bakewell presented map showing property under petition plus surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Traffic Bureau, Department of
Public Safety, stating they find the design satisfactory. They
stated they would recommend that the existing "Northland Drive",
running west from Norwich, be renamed "Northland Court" to reduce
confusion. We also have a letter in our file from the Division of
Fire, Department of Public Safety, stating they have no objection to
its development pending an approved water supply and hydrant
locations.
10399
Mr. Engebretson: At study meeting we discussed with Mr. Constantine, the
petitioner, that he would look into some alternative plans in order
to have the traffic moved from Northland Drive to Gill Road. Did
that happen?
'`.
Mr. Nagy: Yes, during this past week we did meet with the petitioner and
representive of petitioner's engineers and while we did review those
plans and tried to work out a satisfactory solution, we could not
come to a meeting of the minds. The petitioner is here tonight and I
don't want to speak for him.
Angelo Constantine, 19300 Northridge Drive, Northville: When I submitted this
preliminary plat I gave it some consideration and thought based upon
the advice of my engineer my design was to put a cul-de-sac in to
eliminate some of traffic flow and I thought it would be better to
have houses on a secluded cul-de-sac. At study meeting some of the
Commissioners expressed concern about having a road out to Gill Road.
Mr. LaPine: What is your objection to having a road coming off of Gill Road? I
don't see what the problem is. The lots along Gill Road are 90 foot
lots. All it requires is for you to make them 80 foot lots and use
the 60 feet gained for the road. You can pick up the same six lots.
You bring a road thru and it goes right in and hooks up to the road
you already have existing. You should not have to lose any lots.
You still would have your cul-de-sac at the end and that way we could
keep Northland Drive closed off. I don't understand what is your
objection to that.
Mr. Constantine: Just the fact I could give the property owners 90 foot lots.
Mr. LaPine: You have to take into consideration the only way you can get into
that subdivision is to come through Windridge Subdivision. That is
not fair to people who live there. It seems to me you will still be
able to sell those 80 foot lots.
Mr. Constantine: I just thought it would reduce traffic flow out of subdivision.
It would seem to me if somebody turns on Northland Drive its for one
reason either to go home or to cruise area.
Mr. LaPine: What I am concerned about are the people who live on Northland Drive.
With my proposal we could keep Northland Drive dead end. To me, I
have nothing against your proposal, it just makes more sense to have
the entrance off Gill Road.
Mr. Morrow: I would support that in this particular case. I don't want to add
traffic to that particular subdivision plus having lived in the area,
if you have ever tried to go east on Seven Mile, you don't know how
rough it is. The people moving in there won't really appreciate it
until they see how tough it is to get out on Seven Mile Road. I
think we did indicate we did want to at least see an alternative to
have that particular road coming off Gill Road. From a planning
standpoint that is what I would like to see.
Mr. LaPine: You indicated at our study session you had an alternative plan.
10400
Mr. Constantine: It was a sketch. Nothing that I would want to present to you.
When I made this determination to submit this, I made the
determination thinking it is in the best interest of the community.
Mr. LaPine: What type of homes are you building in there?
'41"' Mr. Constantine: I will probably just develop lots and sell them.
Mr. LaPine: You are going to put in improvements and sell off lots to individual
builders? What control would we have then?
Mr. Nagy: To the extent you could control it would be with the final plat, the
covenants and restrictions are part of plat itself, so you could
review them and be comfortable with the restrictions.
Mr. Constantine: It is my intention to either build houses or have them built
equal to or greater than what are existing now.
Mr. McCann: I don't like the idea of dead end streets there chopping up
subdivision. In this case I count seventeen homes that would be in
addition to Northland. I like the idea that it is a cul-de-sac. I
think people living in new homes would like that. However, I think
it carries into the subdivision. It appears to me that Northland was
originally planned to go to Gill Road. I don't think the addition of
seventeen homes would be that much of a burden.
Tom Caruana, 19293 Norwich: Two things. First of all I am on Lot 8. I would back
up to what appears to be cul-de-sac. At the end of my property line,
where my children play, from looking at map I see the cement from
that street would run to my back yard. My question is, would we have
some sort of easement or barrier to prevent people from turning
around there. There is no area for grass or sidewalks. Secondly, I
Now
also represent the Windridge Village Civic Association. I have
letter from association objecting to the opening of Northland Road.
If you would like me to read it, it states the reasons. "The
Windridge Village Civic Association, which is an association of 292
houses, request that the proposed plat plan be modified to have Gill
Roads entrance/exit only for the following reasons: Construction
traffic through subdivision to build roads and houses; increased
traffic on Norwich Road (possibility of 34 more cars (17 lots x 2
cars) trying to get out onto Seven Mile Road in an already high
accident corner); Gill Road is paved and has a traffic light at both
Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads; two other newly approved
subdivisions on the east side of Gill Road will have a Gill Road
entrance/exit and secondly because of the close proximity to
Windridge Village Subdivision, we would like to see the current deed
restrictions for Windridge Village I and Windridge Village II
incorporated into the deed restrictions for Gill Orchards and
Mayflower Estates Subdivisions." As the Commission may remember when
this was first rezoned as R-2, there were a couple of other
developments that were coming through at same time and Council, in
their final approval, had asked that all those builders work together
to develop that piece of property as one big area, to have the roads
like they need them.
(Mr. Caruana turned letter in to the Secretary for our file)
10401
Robert Sickler, 19341 Norwich: I object to cul-de-sac as it isolates the two
portions which are RUF. In addition, it doesn't allow for the
development of that property as residential property. I propose that
a better use of the land would be to extend the street straight down
New and end it, which would allow access to Gill Road.
Victor Siavrkas, 34166 Northland Drive: I am here as individual more or less
supporting what Mr. Caruana stated earlier. The added traffic will
be a burden. It is quite obvious why we should not consider the
proposed plan for the obvious reasons, the traffic aspect. The added
traffic does create a problem in existing subdivision.
John Mahn, 34320 Seven Mile: I live in yellow house on northeast corner. I talked
to Angelo here regarding the planning of this. We control HH4B and
we control Mayflower Estates #1, meaning we have built it. I talked
to Angelo, a few minutes ago, thinking there would be a better way to
improve this property so we have a couple of plans to satisfy the
civic group and which will take a study session on your behalf. We
are thinking continuing Northland Drive down and we have already a
model here. If it is agreeable with Mr. Constantine and my people
that we continue the road down splitting these lots and dropping the
road down here to empty out onto Gill road. I have some sketches
here but it will take some study.
Mrs. Fandrei: I think at this point it might be a good plan to just meet with
residents and talk with them before you bring your plan before the
Planning Department. Get some imput from the residents.
Mr. Mahn: We want to be compatible and also we have a lot invested here already
but for expediency of time, we don't want to leave it there. We want
Nosy to get the ball rolling.
Mr. LaPine: Would that mean that Northland Drive would be open or would it still
be dead end?
Mr. Mahn: The developers always leave a dead end road.
Mr. Tent: Seeing that we are at an impass here at this particular point, I
would like to honor Mr. Mahn's request and Mr. Constantine's and let
them get together and come up with a proposal at one of our study
sessions and we can go from there. I think what we have here now is
a problem and it will take some time to resolve the issues.
Kathleen Uhlig, 34177 Northland: I purchased property one year ago and prior to
purchasing property my realtor and I checked with City and we were
told that this was going to be a dead end there and it was not going
to be any possibility of Northland emptying into Gill Road so that we
would be a through street going all the way to Gill Road and we
talked with you and that was the information we received. I am a
very disappointed person if this is what is going to happen. I don't
want to be on a street that goes through. I feel I have been misled.
Mr. LaPine: Let me assure you, it wasn't anybody on this Commission.
Mrs. Uhlig: The realtor called the Planning Commission and this was the
'taw was
I was given. I was given the information that the street
was not going through.
10402
Mr. LaPine: It was not Planning Commission. Maybe they talked to someone in
Planning Department.
Frank Godlesky, 19245 Norwich: The proposed Northland being opened up would be a
mistake and injustice to Windridge. If I was to buy a house in
cul-de-sac, I would prefer my family to go out to Gill Road and use
the light. I hear the screeching of tires on Seven Mile almost
daily. I have to wait 15 minutes to go out onto Seven Mile. I think
leaving Northland closed and opening up on Gill Road would be the
best thing.
William Hall, 34194 Northland: I live right next door to the proposed development
and I have three small children and that is one personal reason why I
don't want that road opened because of increase in traffic. I think
a valid point has been made here tonight. When you try to get out
on Seven Mile it is sometimes a very dangerous situation. I would
like to keep traffic out of Windridge as much as possible.
Mr. Contantine: When I originally came to the Planning Commission two years ago,
my original intent was to develop six lots and I asked for rezoning.
It was zoned RUF and they told me we will give you zoning but we
would like to see you get together with people next door. That
wasn't possible initially so, I went out and paid top dollar for this
property. If there is anything we can do to expedite this it would
be appreciated as timing is of the essence. I know there are no
guarantees that Northland Drive could be extended. I am willing to
talk and meet everybody's needs.
Mr. Morrow: I guess we did have an opportunity to study this with you last week
and I guess you should have carried away the message. We know you
have time constrictions because of weather but it seems you have done
nothing to help yourself. You had to know there were some concerns.
Mr. Constantine: It seemed there were some people who were in favor of it. Mr.
McCann seemed to think it was better not to have a road in there, I
believe that was your opinion.
Mr. McCann: I did have some positive feelings, however, the idea of this hearing
tonight is for me to get an idea of how the neighbors feel about it
and I have to take into consideration how they feel. I have to
consider their opinion when making my own.
Mr. Constantine: I understand that. I realize something has to be done with a
road out to Gill Road.
Mr. LaPine: Do you think there is any possibility you and the other builder can
get together?
Mr. Constantine: I have no objection to that.
Mr. LaPine: I think the suggestion made by Brenda that maybe you could get
together with people in the area who are going to be affected. I
would think ladies and gentlemen we might be able to table this until
we have alternative plans.
10403
Edward Woods, 34153 Northland: When this new plat does get developed, can we get
more people notified that are going to be directly affected by this?
I didn't get a letter about this.
.,„ Mr. Nagy: For plats, the ordinance requires only abutting property owners are
notified.
Mr. Woods: Therefore, I am not concerned?
Mr. Nagy: I did not say that. I am here to administer the City ordinance. The
City ordinance states abutting property owners. We also publish
notice in paper but you are absolutely welcome to attend these
meetings and present your view and the Planning Commission will take
your view into consideration.
Mr. LaPine: We will somehow notify people in that area if I have to personally
come over to your house and tell you.
Jane Godlesky, 19245 Norwich: We are directly abutting up to that property and we
did not receive notice.
Mr. Nagy: Our City records showed we mailed a notice to that address.
Mr. LaPine: Our City records show a notice was sent to you.
Mr. Mahn: When we developed Mayflower Estates #1 we continued the road coming
out of Windridge. I believe that took a lot of the traffic burden
off your street. Now we are proposing the same thing for you people
because the road will be in my back yard going out to Gill Road and
we think that would relieve traffic on Norwich.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for
Gill Orchards Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
adopted, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
1, 1988 on Preliminary Plat approval for Gill Orchards Subdivision
proposed to be located north of Seven Mile Road east of Gill Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Preliminary Plat approval for Gill Orchards Subdivision until the
Planning Commission study meeting of November 15, 1988.
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-1-27
by Jerry Gottlieb to rezone property located on the north side of Joy
Road between Newburgh Road and Stonehouse Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 31, from R-4 to R-7.
Mr. Bakewell presented map showing property under petition plus surrounding area.
10404
.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to
service the site. They state that based on recent information
received by their office in connection with the adjacent Crystal Pond
Condominium site (a similar structure), outletting the drainage to a
storm sewer system in Westland on a restricted basis does not appear
to be a viable solution to the storm sewer question.
Mr. LaPine: Are they saying that R-7 there now which dumps into sewers in
Westland is not viable?
Mr. Nagy: It is not a viable solution for Crystal Pond or this developer to tie
into that system in Westland. They are saying Mr. Gottlieb will have
to find his own solution.
Jerry Gottlieb, 30135 Sunset Drive, Farmington Hills: I am in contact with Bill
Roskelly, who is doing my engineering work, and frankly he has
assured me I would not have a problem with my storm system and if I
have a problem then I won't be able to build the project until I come
up with some solution but I am here to see if I could get it zoned
and take it from there. I was hoping to be able to build some
condominiums.
Mr. Morrow: What you hear here from Engineering has not persuaded you from
proceeding with this project?
Mr. Gottlieb: No, I have talked to Basney & Smith, my engineering firm, and they
said it was not a problem.
'ft• Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, the R-7 zoning, that project hasn't started yet?
Mr. Nagy: Correct. It hasn't started yet.
Mr. Tent: The reason for it is the sewers?
Mr. Nagy: I think that would have a lot to do with it.
Mr. Tent: Therefore if we did go ahead and approve some additional R-7 it would
compound the problem. It would just go on and on. Shouldn't we
resolve this problem before we go any further? I would hate for him
to go to a lot of expense and he might not be able to use the land.
Mr. Morrow: I guess he has the right to buy a piece of property and ask for
rezoning.
Mr. Gottlieb: Mr. Roskelly indicated to me he didn't feel it would be a problem. I
don't know specifically that he had this other development in mind
when he was telling me that.
Mr. Morrow: I think we can press on with zoning. Whether the lot is ever
developed or not we are here to decide whether R-7 should go in that
parcel. I don't want to deny it for that reason. All I am saying,
R-7 is this appropriate for that corner?
Mr. Gottlieb: That is all I came here for.
`4111.
104G5
Mrs. Fandrei: At this point I am not myself ready to rezone to R-7, which is a
multiple use, with the present situation with the sewers. R-4 might
be workable for residences. If we rezoned to R-7, we are opening up
a can of worms.
Mr. LaPine: If you are going to single family or R-7, if there is a sewer
problem, there is a sewer problem. I think it is logical to rezone to
R-7.
Chris Vaughn, 37912 Joy Road: We all got in our mailboxes from our civic
association petitions that we were supposed to sign, I don't know if
you got them or not, either for or against. We were told this was
going to be an apartment complex. Apartments I would say no to. We
just purchased a new house there a year ago. The only four houses on
Joy Road that you can see. I wonder how apartments would fit in
there and the sewer problem does exist. Condomoniums I can almost
live with if they are presented in such a manner as, I think, it was
shown by your third petitioner, so they are classy looking. I just
don't see the need if it is going towards apartments. That is
basically the case I wanted to state. I am wondering what is going
to happen to Stonehouse. No one has been able to tell me about what
is going to happen to Stonehouse. There are a lot of things up in
the air and I think before anything is changed, I would like to see
everything changed back over to R-7. I would like to be involved if
anything does happen.
Mr. Nagy: I do know there is a proposal before Engineering Department to open
Stonehouse. Mr. Gottlieb, your petitioner, has provided for the
right.-of-way needed. This subject parcel has been diminished by
amount needed to provide for future road right-of-way. What the
rr„ status is I don't know.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Chris was concerned are they going to be condominiums. Are they
going to be rental?
Mr. Gottlieb: Condominiums. Absolutely. Eleven attached condominiums. It is on
drive off of Joy Road. A very lovely project. My project is for
seven one-story and four two-story condos.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Basements?
Mr. Gottlieb: No basements.
Mr. Engebretson: Our notes indicate you were planning to develop four one-story
and six two-story. One other question Mr. Gottlieb, have you
developed similar condominiums previously in the area.
Mr. Gottlieb: I have been building in Livonia off and on. My first venture was in
1973 when I developed a subdivision. Recently I was before this
board and got rezoning for office site at Seven Mile and Merriman.
Mr. Tent: I have all the confidence in this developer that he would put up
decent project but I am concerned about the general area and there
are going to be sewer problems. I wonder if we are ever going to get
anything in that area. Based on this I couldn't support this
petition.
:- 10406
Mrs. Fandrei: I feel the same way. Until the sewer problem is satisfied I cannot
support this petition to rezone.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#11-207-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
1, 1988 on Petition 88-9-1-27 by Jerry Gottlieb requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Joy Road between Newburgh Road and
Stonehouse Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, from R-4 to R-7,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 88-9-1-27 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will amount to a minor expansion
of an existing zoning district in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will result in a minor increase in
the population density for the neighborhood.
3) That the proposed change of zoning 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 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
r AYES: McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine
NAYS: Tent, Fandrei
ABSENT: Vyhnalek, Kluver
\►
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-208-88 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 a
portion of a 20 foot alley located south of Grand River Avenue between
Antago and Rensellor in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
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. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Li On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
adopted, it was
10407
#11-209-88 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 the
north five feet of Norfolk Avenue right-of-way adjacent to Imonen
Subdivision located between Mayfield and Hubbard in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 3.
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. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and
unanimously adopted, it was
#11-210-88 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 567th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on October 18, 1988 are
approved as corrected.
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-211-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition
88-9-8-25 by Kamp-DiComo Associates for approval of all plans required
by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct an office building located on the north side of Five Mile Road
between Farmington Road and Westmore Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 15, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That Landscape Plan #88019-A dated 9-30-88 by Norman C. Kaipio is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the landscape material be installed on site prior to building
occupancy and permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-212-88 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 88-10-8-29 by Thrifty Aluminum Products, Inc.
requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to erect a 18' x 60' open carport canopy at
the Livonia Mall Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of
Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in Section 2, be approved subject to the
following condition:
10408
•
•
1) That Plan #88536 for covered management parking in Lot G of the
Livonia Mall prepared by Thrifty Aluminum Products is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to.
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
Sur
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 568th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on November 1,
1988 was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/7 ////
.-}aures C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST: f 2 f
William LaPine, Vice Chairman,'
jg
`rr.