HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1987-12-08 10085
MINUTES OF THE 549th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
1400
On Tuesday, December 8, 1987, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 549th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. , with
approximately 30 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Sue Sobolewski
Donna Naidow R. Lee Morrow Richard Straub
Michael Soranno
Members absent: C. Russ Smith James C. McCann
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 reso-
lutions. 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 87-10-1-38
by Mackinac Construction Company to rezone property located on the
northwest corner of Middlebelt Road and Norfolk in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 2 from C-1 to P.S.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department which
states that they have no objections to the proposal. A letter in
the file from the petitioner requests that the petition be tabled to
allow additional time for them to prepare studies regarding the
project.
The petitioner was not present.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-10-1-38 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted,
t
it was
#12-271-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 8,
1987 on Petition 87-10-1-38 by Mackinac Construction Company to
10086
410, rezone property located on the northwest corner of Middlebelt Road
and Norfolk in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from C-1 to P.S. , the
City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition
87-10-1-38 until the Study Meeting to be conducted on January 26, 1988.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-11-2-50
by Dennis Munch for waiver use approval to operate an auto rental business in
an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 35.
Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Department states that, from
an engineering standpoint they have no objection to the petition.
That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We had a problem with the parking. Has that been revised?
Mr. Nagy: Between the prehearing review and tonight's meeting, the petitioner
has revised the site plan to bring it into conformance with the
offstreet parking requirements.
Dennis Munch of Tuffy Service Center, 30451 Plymouth Road: I would like to start
an auto repair and rental to accommodate service customers when they
leave their cars for service.
Mr. Kluver: You are providing ten rental cars basically for your customers?
Nothing else to be used to support your business and you will be
renting cars to customers who leave their cars there for a twenty-
four hour period?
Mr. Munch: Or longer depending on how long the people leave their cars for
service.
Mr. Kluver: Will the services be more than just mufflers?
Mr. Munch: Full service.
Mr. Kluver: Technically, a car could be there for several days?
Mr. Munch: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: The only thing we are doing other than the waiver use is changing
the striping on the existing pavement, and there will be ten cars?
Will the signs change to indicate that?
Mr. Munch: We have a revised landscape and signage plan. We will re-landscape
the area in front of the shop.
10087
411111 Mrs. Naidow: Are there bumper blocks at the back of the parking lot so that people
don't park on the grass?
i IL
Mr. Shane: They are not indicated on the plans.
Mrs. Naidow: I would like to see some so we don't see cars back there.
Mr. Nagy: The plan says there are curbs provided in the back.
Tom Murphy, 30572 Elmira: I bought my house from my Dad. We have fought a lot of
times on this. It was supposed to be used for offices. There are
two car businesses in the area now and our subdivision is used for
a testing route. Cars come down Milburn and then turn around at
Elmira and Milburn. The street is getting torn up. I am opposed
to this man putting in rental cars when there are two car dealers
close to this. I can't see why he can't get with one of the dealer-
ships. There are two and that is a lot of cars.
Mr. Soranno: I don't anticipate any additional traffic on account of this. He
is trying to provide a convenience for his customers. They drive
in one car and take out another car.
Mr. Murphy: We already have two car dealerships and Buick rents his cars out.
We have mechanics coming down Milburn constantly.
Mr. Straub: I think you have a reasonable argument, however, I think this
particular petition does not have direct bearing on the problem.
You might be better off speaking with the Traffic Bureau or the
Police Department.
Mr. Murphy: I have already done that. If you check, my name comes up a lot.
Mr. Straub: He is going to continue his existing business for muffler repair.
I don't anticipate any more volume but it won't change the testing.
Mr. Murphy: Several times the Council said it was going to be offices but it
isn't offices. We have two car places instead and it is not right
that there won't be any more cars; there will be.
Mr. Straub: We proposed an amendment to this petition capping the amount of cars
that can appear on the site but I don't think this petition will make
any difference one way or the other on your problem.
Mr. Morrow: Do they use Elmira for a testing track for testing cars? I would
strongly recommend that you preclude having a residential road for
testing tuned-up cars.
William Barlage, 30536 Elmira: Our main concern was that perhaps it would be a car
rental agency going in there. Is your property going to go back all
the way to the wall?
Mr. Munch: No, we have 121 feet in grass.
Mr. Vyhnalek: He will have ten cars there for rental for one or two days.
,
10088
Mr. Nagy: There will be an additional 65 feet of new pavement area in back.
Representative from Wonderland Mall asked for information about the location of the
cars.
Mr. Vyhnalek advised him that the majority of the cars will be in the back.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-2-50 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was
#12-272-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 8,
1987, on Petition 87-11-2-50 by Dennis Munch for waiver use approval
to operate an auto rental business in an existing building located on
the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads
in Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 87-11-2-50 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
(1) that the site plan dated 12-3-87, as revised, prepared by
Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to;
(2) that the landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall
16: be installed no later than May 1, 1988 and shall be permanently
maintained in a healthy condition; and
(3) that there shall be no more than ten (10) lease cars stored or
parked on the subject site at any one time.
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use complies with the waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning
Ordinance #543.
(2) The proposed site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
(3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses 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: Straub, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Naidow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Kluver
ABSENT: Smith, McCann
Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10089
IlifMrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-11-2-51
by George Cueter for waiver use approval to construct an addition to
an existing motel located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road
between Inkster and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicates they
have no objection to the proposal from an engineering standpoint.
George Cueter, 19802 Mack Avenue, Grosse Pointe Woods: I represent Super 8 Motels
who is under contract and purchased the existing facility known as
the Compton Motor Inn. We plan to shut the facility down, renovate
it and put in a new facade and restaurant. We are adding twenty-
eight rooms on the west of the building.
Mrs. Sobolewski: What type organization is Super 8; where do they come from and
who are they?
Mr. Leehane, representative of Super 8, Aberdeen, South Dakota: Super 8 is pri-
vately owned by three people. They started in South Dakota with
one hotel. Since then, we have opened over 502 in a period of
fifteen years. It is a total organization. We only need someone
else to bring in the hotel. We supply everything in connection with
the motel our selves.
Mrs. Sobolewski: How many Super 8's do you have?
I: Mr. Leehane: Six open and in the Detroit area we have a contract for ten sites
and another in Grand Rapids and Lansing.
Mrs. Sobolewski: This is one of the first ones in this area? How would it compare
to a Knight's Inn? Will there be a convention facility?
Mr. Leehane: Normally we build a motel that fits the community. We are very
"Plain Jane." In Detroit, we have modified the plan, the lobby and
suites, jacuzzi, whirlpool. I am not sure about a convention facility.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Will there be a cocktail lounge?
Mr. Leehane: No cocktail lounge. We have bought the whole thing. We will force
the restaurant to upgrade the interior and exterior of the restaurant.
Mr. Morrow: Does the parking have to be appealed?
Mr. Nagy: We take the position that it is minor and they have a reciprocal
agreement to use the Cloverlanes property. That can handle the over-
hang of parking.
Mr. Soranno: You are asking for a waiver of the seven-day requirement. Does that
mean you want to get started yet this season?
Mr. Leehane: Yes, we are under contract and want to start on or before the 10th
of January.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How long will construction take?
10090
Mr. Leehane: About three to six months once we get started.
Christopher Hogan, 14015 Brentwood: I have been there six years. I have no objection
to the motel but the garbage is a problem. At 1:00 in the morning
they are closing their lids and at 5:00 in the morning trucks are
coming in to pick it up. These are minor concerns but the wall has
been broken a couple times. There are problems with people hopping
the wall. I have talked to the neighbors and our concern is to have
some degree of privacy. There is a 5-1/2 foot wall but behind us.
On the other side, it is six feet. I would like to see a minimum
six foot wall back there for some degree of privacy. I really feel
six feet would be a minimum. Seven feet would be good. Four feet
does not make it. And I would like to see the buildings and dumpsters
away from the wall. It really screws up the TV antenna.
Mr. Morrow: Those are bonefide concerns and we appreciate hearing your comments so
that the developer and landlord can respond to your concerns.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What does the Ordinance say about the wall? One is four feet and
one is six feet.
Mr. Nagy: The Ordinance says there shall be an unpierced masonry screen wall
at least five feet, no less more than seven feet. If the Commission
feels it is reasonable to have a uniform wall, you could add that as
a condition of approval. There is a section of the wall missing but
otherwise it seems well repaired and doing the job. The Commission
will have to evaluate that.
Mr. Leelane: I am not saying anything against Mitch Housey runnning his business
but a lot of the stuff going on there right now, we will deal with.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Will you have an open door policy that a neighbor can come in and
talk with the management?
Mr. Leelane: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I would check that wall.
Mr. Kluver: Do you have any objection to putting in a uniform wall behind you?
You are going to renovate the site and it would be natural to upgrade
the wall. I would support reconstructing the wall.
Mr. Leelane: I can't answer that specifically. When I looked at the wall, Mitch
Housey had just had it repaired three years ago and it seemed
adequate. The problem is not the wall but the controlling of the
parking.
Mr. Kluver: But the wall would act as a deterrent. The City fathers who
originated the Ordinance didn't think a uniform wall was needed.
I feel strongly about this and I would strongly support reconstruc-
t, tion of the entire wall.
Mr. Leelane: It is a brick wall.
10091
Mr. Kluver: You would have to tear it down. It is not a case of patching.
Iv Resident: The wall was repaired about three or four years ago. The new section
of the wall is three feet on my property. There have been cases
where the houses have been burglarized and things passed over the
wall to somebody in the parking lot.
Mr. Soranno: If it is six feet, that couldn't happen?
Resident: If it was seven feet, that likely could not happen.
Sonia Mulvihill, 28378 Gita: There are a lot of complaints from the neighbors about
dumpsters being emptied at 5:00 in the morning and all hours. We
also want to know if this is going to be a high rise or two story.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It will be the same height. Are those dumpsters enclosed?
Mrs. Mulvihill: They seem to be but the noise comes not only from the motel but
from the other commercial buildings, too.
Ronald Rozen, 28631 Buckingham: I am a sixteen year resident. I want to make the
Board aware of the problems we have had in the past. We have been
plagued with trucks parking there all hours. We have been plagued
with garbage and noise. We have talked with Mitch Housey and he has
tried to cooperate. He is going to handle the restaurant. If you
could just see the situation there. From my front lawn, I look into
the parking lot. They leave vehicles for weeks at a time. Who is
going to police them? What is this going to do to the value of my
property? I don't see any picture of what is going up there. The
place now needs to be repaired as it is. We don't need any more
construction there and we don't need another motel. It is dirt and
filth. The place is a pig pen. This upsets me. I belong to the
Compton Subdivision and I assumed this was a preliminary type of
thing. I want to get together with my neighbors before they build
this and make sure they are doing the right thing. They want to push
this thing through. The wall is only four feet high. There is no
safe-guard to keep people there from coming into the subdivision.
Mr. Nagy: We do have a drawing of the development.
The drawing was displayed for the Commission and members of the audience.
Resident: What is this going to do to my property. If the place looks like that,
I will be amazed.
Mr. Soranno: I understand there are problems there and the way it is run down.
Are you saying you would rather have it stay the way it is?
Resident: We have called the Police Department several times. They have air
conditioners on the trucks that run all night. They are adding 28
rooms. If I could see a plan showing the footing or what is going
in the back, I would have a better idea. Are you aware of the con-
gestion that goes on there now?
10092
Mrs. Sobolewski: We don't know that there is a problem. That is the purpose of
this hearing tonight and we depend on your comments. Right now,
we are being made aware and that is why we will get things settled
tonight or some kind of arrangements made so you feel comfortable
with this.
Mr. Rozen: I don't see where this is any improvement on the property. You are
adding twenty-eight units but who is going to clean the place up?
Mr. Soranno: If they are coming into the area with the first motel site, I think
they wouldn't want something that is a shambles there.
Mr. Cueter: We are not trying to ramrod this thing through. We made applicatioon
and were at a study meeting and now at this meeting tonight. We are
going to have another hearing by the City Council. Keep in mind
that Mitch Housey rented that whole facility. The hotel that will
be built will be completely different. These fellows that you have
the problems with will not be there at $45 per day. Mitch Housey
was renting by the week or month for about $14 per day. For that
kind of money, you are going to have a completely different type of
people. We can't control the whole area but if there is a problem
with garbage pick-up at 5:00 in the morning, we can have it picked
up at 7:00 or 8:00. We took the chance and have had a complete
layout and landscape plans prepared and they are not investing in this
just to lose money. I think this will be a credit to the neighbor-
hood. Basically, they are in business to make money and they can't
see coming to Livonia unless they feel that this can be turned
around. They are making Mitch Housey renovate the complete site.
Resident: I am sorry to say that this is new to me but it seems to me that
we can move a little slower on this so that my neighbors can be
aware of this. I don't think there is enough parking in there and
I think it should be given a little more consideration.
Mr. Vyhnalek: There will be another meeting before the Council.
Mr. Straub: We have given this petition much consideration and I am troubled
because you have questions that we do not have ready answers for.
We studied this last week at a study session and we have this type
of control in the City of Livonia. It is not a rezoning matter.
If the site is an eye sore like this is, we evaluate the petition
on that merit. Because of your comments, I have questions on the
wall and I am leaning toward this to upgrade the area but we have
given this matter a great deal of consideration and for your
benefit perhaps we should have gone through the site plan.
A site plan showing the development was displayed for the Commission and audience.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I am in support because it will upgrade the area and the neigh-
bors hopefully will be satisfied but I feel some commitment should
be made about the wall. I am afraid to pass it on to Council because
they might not do anything about it. I would like to know what
height the wall will be. I feel we shouldn't leave here tonight
without some commitment on the part of the petitioner.
10093
Mr. Soranno: When we approve a site plan, it also includes the location of the
dumpsters and if you plan to move it, let us know now.
Mr. Leelane: No problem moving the dumpster location as long as it conforms with
the fire laws.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What if we added on that a six foot wall should be constructed?
Mr. Nagy: The Commission can add that as a condition of approval -- that the
wall shall be reconstructed at six feet.
Mr. Morrow: Can you give us a sense of time so that the people can get an idea
how long they have to get with their neighbors. I agree what
happened here was a bad situation. I hope the petitioner after
tonight will implement some of those things. What is your position
about the diesel trucks coming in? You are in close proximity to
our citizens.
Mr. Leelane: There have been trucks sitting out there but if they can't stay
at the motel, they won't park there.
Mr. Morrow: If it is a four-foot wall and the Ordinance says five feet, is this
an opportunity to bring it into conformance?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it is an opportunity to bring it into conformance.
Mr. Morrow: Can we give them an idea as to what the scheduling of the City is?
Mr. Nagy: There are two meetings of the Council left in 1987. One is sched-
for tomorrow evening, December 9th. If he makes that Council meet-
ing, they can schedule it for the Regular Meeting of December 21st.
If the Commission chooses not to report it out, the next meeting
is not until January. I can't advise on the meeting dates of 1988.
The most opportune scheduling is December 9th and December 21st.
Mr. Soranno: Is there is need for another public hearing on waiver uses or is
there only one public hearing unless it is denied.
Mr. Nagy: If it is denied, the peititoner must appeal and thereafter there is
a hearing at the Council level. If it is approved by the Commission,
the Council will vote on it after a study of it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is an open meeting?
Mr. Nagy: Absolutely.
Mr. Soranno: What would happen if we were not able to make a decision tonight?
Mr. Cueter: We would be history. We are dealing with a landlord and we are
bound to do something by January 10, 1988.
Mr. Straub: I would encourage the petitioner to meet with some of the residents
of the area to hear some of their grievances.
10094
Mr. Cueter: We have no problem with that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-2-51 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted,
it was
#12-273-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 8,
1987 on Petition 87-11-2-51 by George Cueter for waiver use
approval to construct an addition to an existing motel located
on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Inkster and Middle-
belt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 87-11-2-51 be approved subject to the following con-
ditions:
(1) that the Site Plan, Sheet A2, dated 11/16/87, prepared by
TSP Group, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to;
(2) that the Landscape Plan, Sheet A2D, dated 11/16/87, prepared
by TSP Group, Inc. Architects, is hereby approved and the
landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
(3) that the Building Elevation Plan, Sheet A-5, dated 11/16/87,
prepared by TSP Group, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
(4) that the existing four-foot screen wall shall be removed and
replaced with a uniform six-foot high protective screen wall
(5) that the Site Plan shall be revised to show the dumpster
locations as they present exist on the site and that they
shall be screened with a material matching the required, new
protective wall and they shall be equipped with gates.
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards
and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of
Zoning Ordinance #543.
(2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
(3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
(4) The proposal represents a substantial upgrading of the subject
site.
10095
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted,
it was
#12-273a-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven-day period con-
cerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connec-
tion with Petition 87-11-2-51 by George Cueter for waiver use
approval to construct an addition to an exisitng motel located on
the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Inkster and Middlebelt
Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolutioon
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-11-2-52
by John D. Dinan for waiver use approval to construct an auto service
center on the west side of Merriman Road, north of Plymouth Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 27.
11, Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department which
states that there are no City maintained storm sewers readily avail-
able to service the site development (Livonia Drain No. 1 exists
under the pavement area within the Merriman Road right-of-way).
Charles Tangora, representing the petitioner: This is a facility that has Kale's
Collision on one side and a brake center on the other. The site is
well landscaped. There is one ingress and egress in front of the
building off Merriman Road. We left pictures of the building with
the Planning Department. Mr. Dinan has been doing business in
Livonia for a number of years. His office building is well maintained.
The type of architecture and material used in this building will be a
credit to the City.
Mrs. Naidow: Do you plan to do any paint work there?
Mr. Tangora: Yes, it will be a body shop.
Mr. Kluver: Collision, painting, sanding, straightening of frames?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Richard Schuler, representing Oppenheimer Livonia Associates: I have some questions,
especially about the body shop. It backs up to a private drive,
Enterprise Drive. We are a little concerned about the cars in the
body shop. Where will they be parked? One problem I had was the
problem with Sabatinis in terms of traffic. They thought the ten feet
was a public road but it is a private drive. I have the same concerns
try now and also about where the waiting cars will be.
10096
Mr. Vyhnalek: Who owns that drive?
Mr. Schuler: We do. We tried to give it to the City several times in the past
eighteen years but they declined the offer. The fence is on a
portion of our property on the inside of the drive. We have a
parking area outside the fence.
General discussion was held regarding the Site Plan which was shown to Mr. Schuler
and interested persons in the audience.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-2-52 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Straub, it was
#12-274-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 8,
1987 on Petition 87-11-2-52 by John D. Dinan for waiver use approval
to construct an auto service center on the west side of Merriman Road,
north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 87-11-2-52 be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1, dated 11/10/87, prepared
by Architectural Resource Associates, P.C. , which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to;
(2) that the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be
installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
(3) that the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3, dated
11/10/87, prepared by Architectural Resource Associates, P.C. ,
which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and
(4) that the trash dumpster shall be screened with reinforced
concrete with a simulated brick face or equivalent matching
the color of the building;
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of
Zoning Ordinance #543.
(2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
(3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
10097
AYES: Morrow, Straub, Kluver, Soranno, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Sobolewski, Naidow
IL ABSENT: Smith, McCann
Mr. Vyhnalek,Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-11-2-53
by Ron Parz for waiver use approval to construct a shopping center on
the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Department states that
Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60 ft.)
in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. In addition,
a storm sewer outlet for the property is located on the south side
of Plymouth Road.
Charles Tangora, representing the petitioner: You will recall that the site plan
presented at the study session was deficient in terms of setback.
Since that time, the site plan has been amended and turned over to
the Planning Department. It shows a greenbelt and the setbacks on
Technical Center Drive. The greenbelt is on the east side of the
project. The trash enclosures have all been enclosed with simulated
brick. We have the architect here and he would be happy to go over
the site plan if the Commission wishes.
Mr. Morrow: The usage you intend would fall in a C-1 category?
Mr. Tangora: That is right. Prior to this, it was zoned M-1. It was presented
to both the Commission and Council that we would develop in some sort
of fashion mall. A Target Store was proposed at one time.
Mr. Straub: The screening of the southern most air conditioning unit -- does that
appear on the plan?
Mr. Tangora: As far as I know, it does. The petitioner indicated that he would
put up the required screening on the roof.
Mr. Soranno: Was there any discussion about iside compactors?
Mr. Tangora: I think the problem came up. They are all small stores and when
you have a user like that they are not going to generate a lot of
waste. It would be mainly paper goods and normally not needing
inside compactors. There are twelve dumpsters in four locations.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Are the conditions being met about the setbacks. Did the building
get moved back?
Mr. Tangora: Yes, it sets back 100 feet from the lot line. Last week it was
75 feet. The greenbelt is increased also. The building was reduced
to meet the setback requirements. The front stores will be facing
Plymouth Road and the wrap around will have the screening. From the
back there will not be screening because it will be far enough back.
10098
We have the storage facility next door and that is the only one that
could see it from there.
li;
Mr. Morrow: I understood the screening would wrap around the building to screen
it from Plymouth Road. Mr. Parz indicated he would do that and we
would address it if we didn't feel it was enough.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-2-53 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 8,
1987 on Petition 87-11-2-53 by Ron Parz for waiver use approval to
construct a shopping center on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 87-11-2-53 be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the Site Plan marked Sheet S-1, dated 12/4/87, as revised,
prepared by Mandell, Blovus & Associates, Architects, which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to;
(2) that the Landscape Plans marked Sheets LS-1 and LS-2, dated
11/3/87, as revised, prepared by mandell, Blovus & Associates,
Architects, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to and
all landscape materials shall be installed prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently main-
tained in a healthy condition;
(3) that Building Elevation Plan dated 11/3/87, prepared by mandell,
Blovus & Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to;
(4) that an underground sprinkling system shall be installed as part
of the landscape work to service all major grass and planting areas.
(5) that all roof-top units must be screened from visibility from
Plymouth Road.
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use complies will all waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
(2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
(3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surround-
ing uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
10099
1[00 Mr. Kluver: I am voting no because I personally feel that there is not a need
for an additional shopping center in this part of the City. Some
of the things earlier point to a need for re-construction, not new
construction. I-275 being the focal point of the City, we are over-
looking the older commercial areas of the City. We need to revitalize
our commercial development. Sort of like the thing that happened at
Wonderland. New construction is fine but should be done on a prudent
basis.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Straub, Morrow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Kluver, Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow
ABSENT: Smith, McCann
Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the resolution fails for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was
#12-275-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 8,
1987 on Petition 87-11-2-53 by Ron Parz for waiver use approval to
construct a shopping center on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 87-11-2-53 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) 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 Zoning Ordinance #543.
(2) 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 over saturate an area with similar type
uses as is being proposed.
(3) The petitioner has not demonstrated a need for the proposed
use to be located on the subject property given the existing
Wonderland Center, K-Mart and other similar uses located in
close proximity to the subject site.
(4) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and
intensity of the principal use, 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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: I will be voting against this motion from the standpoint that I
think the Ordinance is being complied with and because the entire
parcel is zoned C-1 and all of the applicable standards of the C-1
10100
I: District regulations are being met and in most cases are being
exceeded. The only reason this is a waiver use is because the pro-
posed building is over 30,000 square feet in size.
Mr. Soranno: The magnitude is one of the reasons I am opposed to it. There is
just too much going on there. I don't feel it is a good area for
a strip center.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow
NAYS: Morrow, Straub, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Smith, McCann
Mr. Vynnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-11-2-55
by Northridge Commons associates for waiver use approval to construct a
shopping center on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington
and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Department indicates that
appropriate pavement widenings of Eight Mile Road could be expected
as a requirement of the Wayne County Public Service Division, and
that sidewalks will also be required along the Eight Mile Road frontage.
David Nelson, 32770 Grand River, Farmington: We are proposing to develop 118,250
square feet, fourteen acres, and reserve four acres for development
at a future date. There will be a Great Scott Supermarket and an
Aco Hardware and other stores. We have made several changes in the
development as requested by the Commission. We have lowered the
light poles as requested so as not to be visible from the south or
west of the property. We have decreased the sign down to twenty
feet. We have compactors and Great Scott and the hardware store
have agreed to use compactors. We also have the model as requested.
Mr. Kluver: Mr. Nagy, Eight Mile Road, west of Farmington, is a two-way highway.
When do we anticipate that road to be five lanes?
Mr. Nagy: It is planned to be five lanes and that is shown on the County
Master Thoroughfare Plan but a date has not been determined yet for
the actual improvement and widening of the road.
Charles Mirabitur, 20498 Gill: People in the area are concerned about trucks and
air conditioning. I realize trucks come in early but we have a lot
of apartments here. We also have a lot of roof air conditioning
units. At times the noise level on Eight Mile Road is quite high.
I think the building looks good and it is a vast improvement on what
is on the other side. There will have to be some kind of light at
Gill and Eight Mile Road.
Mr. Nelson: The truck dock is down and is for the purpose of serving the grocery
store, and we have built a wall. We have air conditioning units at
other centers and none of them make noise.
10101
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are they screened?
Mr. Nelson: Yes. There shouldn't be noise beyond the property line from this
kind of equipment and we have screened the truck dock.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We are talking about trucks coming in and unloading early in the
morning.
Mr. Nelson: Most of our trucks deliver after 8:00 in the morning and are done by
noon. We lined up two drives but the County said there is no need to
worry about the other two.
Jane Comstock, 20212 Pollyanna: I am not certain but I think Dr. Nakadar owns the
apartment property and this commercial property.
Mr. Nagy: Not the commercial property, only the apartment property.
Mrs. Comstock: I think it is down the pipe as to when we will have five lanes on Eight
Mile Road but I do think we need a traffic light. I understand the
problem of lights. We are getting lights shining in our homes now and
we are getting noise. The traffic will be running around in the back
and it sounds like more traffic and noise. We have two hardware
stores in the area. I don't see why you are putting all this addi-
tional traffic in this area at this time.
Alfred Weiss, 20454 Gill: My concern is about the noise, not from the air conditioning
but that ramp. If you go over there and look at the Farmer Jack on
Seven Mile and Middlebelt, you'll see why. The reason for the ramp
is to facilitate unloading a semi trailer and the refrigeration units
4 are about fifteen feet off the ground. The truck is a supermarket
storage. The noise ordinance is swell but the residents are what
I am concerned about. It might be that they will have adequate
storage inside but those refrigerated trucks make noise.
Mr. Nelson: We normally have all our stores close at 9:00 or 10:00.
Mr. Weiss: The screening wall is something like seven feet at Seven Mile and
Farmington. This is five feet. We would like to see something
done here. There was a possibility on a prior item of taking down
a wall and putting up another. Two feet more on this would provide
a lot better screening and it would be better for the total project.
Robert Comstock, 20212 Pollyanna: There are some trees on this property. Will
these be left in place?
Mr. Nagy: No, this is all newly planted material.
Mr. Nelson: The seven foot height of the wall is acceptable to us.
Mrs. Comstock: Are there adequate sewers?
Mr. Nelson: Yes.
Mr. Comstock: We paid premium prices for our ravine lots and down the pike this
means that there will have to be a sewer laid and the trees will
be lost.
10102
Mr. Mirabitur: The Tarabusi is about at its maximum now and you are planning to
I:
pour all this extra water in there.
Mr. Weiss: The water rises to about two feet within the bridge over the Tarabusi.
Mr. Nagy: The apartment has a control of water runoff and this development
could have the same thing.
Discussion was held regarding the control of water from the development into the
Tarabusi flood plain area.
Mr. Kluver: Obviously this is not your first development in Livonia. How would
you compare the project at Six and Newburgh to the proposed project
here on Eight Mile Road -- landscaping, type of development.
Mr. Nelson: We did a couple things after listening to your comments. We moved
landscaping, and we did something right because we have air condi-
tioning and no noise. We did more landscaping. This development is
anywhere from 300 to 400 feet away from the property line.
Mr. Kluver: Would you consider your proposed development a major center?
Mr. Nelson: I think we call them community centers. We don't look at it like
a major center -- somewhat like what was built in Canton.
11; Mr. Kluver: My interest is for the best interest of the City and the citizens
so we generate soemthing that helps the City and citizens. I see
a major problem with traffic with this development. That is a major
connector to the Freeway. Do we really need something that big on
that street right now? Maybe in the future. Because it is zoned
C-2, do we have to develop it today? I think we can wait. I think
that community center will be a tremendous impact on the area and
the area is not ready for it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-2-55 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was
#12-276-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 8,
1987, on Petition 87-11-2-55 by Northridge Commons Associates for
waiver use approval to construct a shopping center on the south side
of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 87-11-2-55 be denied for the following
reasons:
(1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver
use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06
of Zoning Ordinance #543.
(2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote
4
10103.
and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and
not over saturate an area with similar type uses as is
being proposed.
(3) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and
intensity of the principal use, 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.
(4) This sector of the City at this time cannot support a commercial
development of the size and intensity as proposed by this petition.
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, Naidow
NAYS: Straub, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Smith, McCann
Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
ILadopted.
Mr. Vyhnalek informed the audience that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission will now proceed with items pending before it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted,
it was
#12-277-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 8,
1987 on Petition 87-10-2-48 by Oppenheimer Livonia Associates for
waiver use approval to operate an automobile leasing and rental
facility on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Merriman and Hubbard Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 87-10-2-48 be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the site plan dated 12-4-87 prepared by Oppenheimer
Livonia Associates which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
(2) that there shall be no more then 16 lease cars parked
or stored on the premesis at any one time.
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposal complies with all waiver use standards
and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
(2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
10104
proposed use.
(3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted,
it was
#12-277-87 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 548th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on November 17, 1987 are
approved.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted,
it was
#12-279-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 87-11-8-33 by Forest Building Company for approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct a two-unit retail store on the south side
of Five Mile Road, east of Merriman in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) that Site Plan 87-106A, Sheet S-1, dated 12/1/87, prepared
by Forest Construction Company, which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to;
(2) that Building Plan 87-106A, Sheet 3-A, dated 10/17/87,
prepared by Forest Construction Company, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to with the added condition
that the east building wall shall be constructed of
scored block; and
(3) that the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall
be installed on the site prior to building occupancy and
thereafter maintained in a healthy condition.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 549th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on
December 8, 1987 was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
CITY/I . ING Fa7ON
` IDonna J. NaidoSecretary
ATTEST: l� v
4
Donald Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman ir . i 6-(14,„
ac